portion of the resolution of the Senate could not be complied with, because the statement of the revenue is made up for the calendar, and not for the fiscal year. This last fact would indicate that the Secretary had studiously selected the fiscal year instead of the calendar, and that with no small trouble!! Quere? Can any other reason be assigned than that, because, in consequence of the tariff of 1828, the fiscal year of 1830 was the year of the greatest commercial depression; and, as such, was better calculatad to make the impression that this scheme had really reduced the revenue to the wants of the government?—which of itself, taking his own calculation of the sum required for the service of the government, and making no allowance for

ther errors, will give a surplus revenue to the amount of $5,605,000.

We published some time ago, a tabular statement correcting the errors of the Secretary's calculation, and yesterday, another, in reply to an article in the Globe, in defence of the scheme in which the correctness of the former statement is maintained, and a new error of more than one million of dollars, in the Secretary's calculation is pointed out. It is our purpose now to give a summary and condensed view of the whole. The Secretary estimated his reduction of the present duties at $10,976,007, (nearly eleven millions of dollars.) It is shown by the statements which we have published, and it is now in fact conceded, that from this sum there ought to be deducted 4,665,491, on account of duties repealed by the act of May, 1830, reducing the reduction of the Secretary to 6,310,000. Again: the $10,976,007, which the Secretary estimates will be reduced by his scheme, as appears by a tabular statement submitted by him to the Senate, are reductions on the duties which accrued during the fiscal year ending on the 30th September, 1830—that is, he has estimated on the amount of the bonds taken for duties, and not on the actual receipts into the treasury. But it is well known, that the duties received are much less than the bonds,as goods upon reexportation, are entitled to drawback—that is, to have the duties refunded. To ascertain the amount of duties to be received, the drawbacks must be deducted from the duties accrued. Having premised this statement, it must be apparent, that a greater amount of drawbacks

will have to be deducted on any quantity of low the average.

goods reshipped, when the duties are high, than when they . low. As for instance, taking the present duties to average 453 per centum, and those proposed by the Secretary at .263, the difference in the drawback on the reshipments of the goods bonded in 1830, under the reduced duties, would stand in the same proportion as 45% to 263, which would give 2,260,000 dollars as the drawbacks, being 1,521,000 dollars less at the rates of duty proposed by the Secretary, than at the rates as they are now, for which the schoa, makes no allowance. This correction, with

those before stated, would diminish his reduction to $4,799,516. But it is estimated that the effect of cash payments, in raising the price of goods, and the bounty to ships and steamboats, as proposed by the Secretary, are equal to a duty of $1,770,000, which sum should also be deducted from his estimated reductions; which, taken from $4,799,516, being the sum of reductions stated above, would bring down the reductions to be effected by the Secretary's scheme, to $3,027,516!! which appears from the data given by the Secretary himself!! So much for errors. There are other circumstances which ought to be taken into consideration. The object of the Secretary appears to be not only to swell the amount of the reduction of duties, under his scheme, but also to present as small an income from duties as possible. With this view he has selected for his estimate the year at which our commerce was the most depressed by the tariff of 1828. He takes the accrued duty of the year ending the 30th September, 1830, which amounted only to $26,320,000; but if he had taken the year ending on the 31st December, 1830, which would seem much more natural, the accrued duties would have been $28,382,000—rather more than two millions more than the year which he selected ' ' and which would have increased the calculation of the income of the duties proportionally, Had he even taken the preceding year, ending the 31st of December, 1829, the accrued duties would have been $27,542,000; more than one million over the year which he selected. But to present it in a more striking point of view--had he selected the subsequent year, ending on the 31st December, 1831, the accrued duties would have been $36,851,162, exceed. ing the year he selected 10,531,000 dol. lars, notwithstanding the act of May, 1830, had reduced the amount of duties accrued, in that year, at least three millions of dollars, which added to $10,531,000, would give an excess of duties accrued in that year, of 13,531,000 dollars over that selected by the Secretary. But the Secretary, or the Globe for him, bjects to the year 1831, on the ground that it was a year of reaction, and that the in ports would accordingly exceed that of aver; age years; but it is surprising that it had not occurred to him, that the preceding years must of necessity have been years of depres: sion, and, of course, would be as much be: It seems not less surprising, that he, who objects to the year 1831, as above the average, should with such curious felicity have selected the very year, at which the de; pression was the greatest; and that it had not occurred to him, that an average of the years. ’29, '30, and '31, would have approached for nearer to the truth than the year selected by him. Had he taken the average and had allow: ed for the reduction by the act of May, 1830, he would have found the average duties accru. ed during the three years to have been upwards of $31,299,900, exceeding the years& lected by more than $, 3,605,000.


rors so great that the estimate of the revenue,

We do not intend to assert, that these errors and miscalculations, gross as they are, were designed; but whether intentional or not, they are

culated to shake the confidence of the country in the official statements of the Treasury Department, and in that view to do much mis. chief. Nothing can be of more importance than that all official papers should be drawn with extreme care, so as to present the most accurate results—neither exaggerating or diminishing in any respect for party, or any other purpose. When such is the case, they present a certain basis of legislation; but when we find such gross errors as this scheme contains, er

under false estimates, falls short at least onethird of the cntire amount estimated, confidence must necessarily be destroyed. . There is one circumstance which requires explanation on the part of the 8ecretary. He was called upon to give a comparative statement, not only of his own scheme, but also of the project reported by the Committee on Manufactures of the Senate. His statement is very dif. ferent in regard to'the two. In his own, he makes no allowance, as has been shown, for the reduction under the act of May, 1830. He esti

mates on the accrued duties, instead of those that are received, and takes the year ending on the 1st of September, 1830. On the contrary, in giving a statement on the project of the Committee on Manufactures, he takes into estimate the reduction by the act of May, 1830, he calcu

lates on the duties received, instead of those ac-|.

crued, and takes the year ending the 31st December, instead of the year ending on the 30th September, 1830. Why this difference 2. In illustration of what we now say, we call the attention of the reader to the article from the Intelligencer, and the reply given in the Globe

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

of the 24thinst, which is appended to this arti-l.

* And the nett revenue 22,697,679 46 The reduction of duty on wine, under the *ct of the 24th May, 1828, commenced on the

1st January, 1829; on cocoa, per act 20th May, 1830, on the 1st January, 1831; consequently no portion of the duty under the repealed acts could be payable in 1832. The duty payable in 1832, on salt imported in 1831, “which has been repealed by the act of 29th May, 1830;” which act made no provision for refunding the duty on the quantity in the public stores on the 1st January, 1832, estimated at $136,562 50 Relative to the “amount which will probably be received in 1832,” on account of the duties on coffee and tea, which have been repealed by the acts of 1830, “an estima e cannot be formed without special returns fron the Collectors of the Customs. They will be required, although it will take some time to obtain them, should it be deemed necessary. Permit me to observe, that it was found impracticable to furnish, within the probable expected time, the information required by the

resolution, for the year ending on the 30th

September, 1831. It is exhibited for the year ending on the 31st December, 1831, the calendar year, being the period for which the revenue accounts have been annually prepared from corresponding entries, made in this office on the collectors accounts adjusted at the Treasury. I have also to remark, that the sums above stated as the gross and nett revenue which accrued in 1831, may be, to a small amount, varied by the final adjustment of accounts now in the course of settlement. I have the honor to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, T. L. SMITH, Register.

Hon. Louis McLANE, Sec'y Treasury.


The difference between Mr. McLANE's calculations, as to the effect upon the revevue, by importing goods free of duty under the Senate's bill reported by Mr. Dickknsox, and his own bill reported to the House. It will be remembered that early in the present session of Congress, Mr. Clay brought into the Senate a resolution, declaring it expedient to reduce the revenue for the future by repealing the laws imposing duties on imported merchandise, which did not come in competition with the products of this country. After a long debate, and a modification of the resolution, it went to the Committee on Manufactures, and they reported a bill in accordance with the principle embraced in it, proposing to admit the kinds of goods hereafter named, free of duty. The Senate then passed a resolution, directing the Secretary of the Treasury to report to that body how much the revenue would be reduced by that bill, if it became a law. In compliance with that direction, he, on the 18th of April, made a report, which is published, and numbered 125 among the documents of the Senate.

This report, it appears on the face of it, was to take the place of one made earlier, in which some errors had been discovered, and therefore stands before the public, as a labor cautiously performed... It represents the entire reduction

[which would be made by the Senate's bill to be

[ocr errors]


$2,168,239; but the footing is erroneous, and
the true amount is $1,668,010. The advocates
of the resolution and the friends of the bill, had
been led to believe from the information in their
possession, that the reduction would be much
Subsequent to these transactions, the Secre-
tary reported a bill, in compliance with a reso-
lution of the House of Representatives, in which
he, affecting to be mediator, proposes a new
modification of the tariff, and a large reduction
of the revenue. This bill was followed by a
paper from the same source, called “a compa-
rative statement, showing the amount and rates
of duties under the present tariff and that proposed
by the Secretary of the Treasury, calculated upon
the importations of the year ending the 30th of
September, 1830.” **
The statement reported to the Senate was al-
so made upon the importations for the the same.
The basis of the two papers appears to be the
same; the object in both cases is to ascertain
how much the revenue would be reduced by
importing certain articles free of duty. These
articles are named both in the report and in the
comparative statement, and nothing more was
necessary than to ascertain the amount of du
ties for the year to which the Secretary limited
his inquiry. This would seem to be an easy
matter, as the evidence of the amount of du-
ties must be matter of record. There ought,
therefore, to be no variation in the two state-
ments touching the same articles for the same
period of time. But singular and unaccountable
as it may seem, there is scarcely an item in the
two documents which correspond. They run so
wide of each other, that while one shows a re-
duction of the revenue of only $1,668,010, the
other shows a reduction of $6,657,601 on the
same articles of merchandise, though in both
cases to be imported free hereafter. That the
reader may judge for himself, the two state-
ments, both made by the Secretary in his offi-
cial capacity, and the one laid before the Senate
and the other before the House, are placed side
by side in figures, as copied from the two do-
cuments. On which of these two papers, lead-
ing to results differing so materially, are we to
rely? This is a matter of great and interesting
moment; and the Secretary, who posseses ever
means of correct information, proves that a bi
of the Senate, which proposes to let the articles
named into the country free of duty, will dimi-
nish the revenue only $1,668,010, while a bill
framed by himself, proposing the same thing,
will diminish the revenue $6,657,601? What
explanation can be given of this matter? The
reader can compare each item, and solve the
difficulty if he can.
Statement in sentin by the

Prunes and Plums 2 3,615 3,476
Figs - - 29,216 48,014
Raisins - - 281,287 222,547
Ginger - - 57 41
Cayenne pepper 16 2
Mace - - 51 51
Nutmegs - 33,525 33,881
Cinnamon, - 1,061 6,961
Cloves - - 4, 149 20,245
Pimento - - 30,562 114,913
Cassia - - 7,927 22,591
fBlack pepper - - 182,076
Camphor - 4,003 8,551
Indigo - - 175,282 185,347
Linseed Oil - 1,726 4,716
Corks - - 14,478 16:467
Brass in plates - 1,750 1,750
Tin in do - 63.200 64,409
Opium - - 8,191 23,033
Flax - - 5,695 13,197.
Cocoa. - - , 10,392 52,649
Crude Saltpetre . 4,954 4,429
Bristles - - 2,945 3,467
Quicksilver - 3,417 51,837
Quills prepared " - 4,108 4,367
+Side arms, &c. - 57,000 14,929
§Dye stuffs, drugs, &c, 100,000 100,000
1,668,010 6,657,601
Comparative statement made by Mr.
McLane for his own bill, to show
its effect on the revenue , $6,657,601
Statement in answer to the Senate's
resolution, by Mr. McLane, to
show the effect of their bill upon
the revenue 1,668,015

[blocks in formation]

“Side and Fire Arms,” which is only $10,929.
§ These articles are not enumerated in the

resolution of with his own answer to the resolution, nor is there an esti.

Articles. answer to the Secretary,
the Senate. bill.

Teas - - 398,975 2,821,562

*Coffee - 387,934, 2s 374,412

Almonds - 26,865 35,055

Currants - 5,661 21,826

mate underprecisely the same denomination in
the comparative statement. It is not easy to
tell, therefore, what they are intended to be
estimated at in the last document. They are:
consequently, set at the same sum here.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][graphic][graphic]

T- =--— ––
3 * raoxi the globe.
o o *; accounting for the difference between
37 ...; r. McLane's Report to the Senate, and Mr.
* Dickerson's Bill, and that of his own Bill re.
* : ported to the House. -
s o: The statement to the Senate exhibited a re-
o * duction of $2,168,039, upon the nett revenue of
* ... the articles therein specified, after deducting
4,144 * drawbacks on exportation; and the calendar
o: o }." 1830 was taken as the basis of calcu-
* * ation.
. ." The duties on teas, coffee, and cocoa, were
4.3% o calculated atthe present rates.
so o The statement to the House of Representa-
lso times embraced the entire imports, and exhibited
14,478 * the gross revenue for the fiscal year, commenc-
1.7% in; the 1st October, 1829, and ending 30th
to September, 1830. ... - •.
8]] - lf the writer of the article in the “Intelli-
5.5% gencer” of yesterday, will ascertain the differ.
10,3}. * ence in amount of duties on the articles above
43; mentioned, between the present and the former
§ 3; rates, and will also deduct the probable amount
34; " for drawbacks, he may the be reconciled to the
4.18 o apparent difference between the two state-
5% o Inents. -
to " -
to " TARIFF OF 1816.
conso He who makes a charge against another,
wn blo to ought himself to be free from offence. Mr. Rit-
even't chie undertakes to accuse the Vice President on
o a charge of inconsistency in reference to the ta-
tr. Milo' riff, while he is guilty of inconsistency himself,
into a in reference to the same subject in the most
...” odious form—a form which can neither be Jus.
ified or excused. The wisest and most virtu-
** ous men may entertain different opinions at dif.
two o l fotent times, and long intervals; in fact such di-
theo versity would seem to be the natural result of
: "... our limited intellect when applied to political
to bo * subjects, many of which can only be solved
o, by time and experience. A public man would
to live in vain—we must be more or less than man, if sixteen years of action and busy life did not
.# **. modify and change many of his opinions, and
* †... howould be dishonest, if such charges did not
***** **this course. But what are we to think of
*...* to inconsistencies which exist,not at different|
... [* Periods of life, but in the self same moment, in
jo. 2 to self same individual? They must be the
is, o & o: of stupidity or o: Such is §.
to so, e's case. He who denounces Mr. -
o o loun for entertaining-different opinions on
o the tariff, after an interval of sixteen years,
*...** alously supports Mr. Van Buren, who was
o , known to be the decided advocate of the ta.
o ". if system. He objects to Mr. Calhoun be-
t o o “use he voted for the tariff of 1816, and sup-
**o: Poshim who voted for the more obnoxious ta-
o, is of 18281
* not ois Bowe would be sorry to rest the defence of
: ** Mr. Calhoun on the canviction of Mr. Ritchie.
*...* 2. He would scorn to ... his course by the tergi-
*... o. otion of the latter, it stands on a more so
o lid foundation. that Mr. Calhoun's views have

[ocr errors]

* modified, and in some respects changed,

after his long experience, we cannot doubt;
and that he has undergone some change of views
as to the tariff itself, in the long interval of six-
teen years, we think highly probable; but that
he ever defended or supported a protective ta-
riff, as distinct from a tariff for revenue, there
is not the slightest evidence, and we believe to
be utterly false. That the tariff of 1816 was
really a revenue tariff, cannot be doubted. It
came from the Committee of ways and Means;
it greatl reduced the existing amount of du-
ties, and it fixed the scale no higher than the
public wants required with the existing debt.
But while it was a revenue tariff, it afforded an
incidental protection to the manufacturers of
the country—an incidental protection at which
almost every public man rejoiced—as it was al-
most universally felt that much was due to the
new direction which the restrictive measures
and the war had given to the capital of the
But Mr. Ritchie relies upon Mr. Calhoun’s
speech as proving that he was in favor of a pro-
tecting tariff. It is true that Mr. Calhoun ex-
pressed himself warmly in favor of the manu-
factures of the country, as he now and has al-
ways felt towards then. He never has doubted
their beneficial effect. His objection has been
to the means of advancing them—to laying on,
under the name of imposts, duties without
reference to revenue, but solely for the object
of advancing the interest of one branch of in-
dustry, at the expense of another; and we de-
fy Mr. Ritchie to point out a single sentiment
in all that Mr. Calhoun said in favor of manu-
facturing, which would give the least counte-
nance to the opinion that he believed a protec-
tive tariff, as separate from one for revenue, to
be constitutional or just . He has not attempt:
ed to point out any such; but, on the contrary,
has rested his accusation simply on the ground
of what Mr. Calhoun said of the beneficial
effect of our manufactures. According to Mr.
Ritchie's logic, to recommend a measure on ac-
count of its incidental advantages, is, in fact, to
assert, not only that the immediate subject of
legislation is constitutional, but that the inci-
dental would also be constitutional, as a direct
object of legislation.
Let us illustrate. Suppose a tariff, for re-
venue, to be under consideration. Suppose it
to be proposed to lay a duty of 20 per cent.
upon books, and suppose that a member should
move an amendment to reduce the duty on
bibles to 10 per cent., and would support his
motion on the ground of the highly beneficial
effect of the bible on the religion and morality
of the country. Mr. Ritchie would not doubt,
the argument would be a fair one; and yet, ac-
cording to his logic, the mover would be commit-
ted in favor of the constitutionality of legislating
on the religion and the morals of the country,
both of which are clearly beyond the constitu.
tional power of Congress. This is analagous to the
case of Mr. Calhoun. He found the House hesi-
tating as to the rates of the duties, and though
few could doubt but that the money was re-
quired, and as the the most efficient moed of


reconciling them to the bill

beneficial effects which the country would de-the opinions of Mr. Calhoun.

[merged small][ocr errors]

, he represented the which Mr. Ritchie has grossly misrepresented

He has equally

rive from the growth of manufactures, and the misrepresented him on the subject of internal obligation which the country was under, from improvement, of which we have an instance in

the peculiar circumstances of the north, of affording them the protection incident to a revenue bill, the constitutional power to do which even Mr. Ritchie will not question. That there may be unguarded exE. in the speech is probable. Mr. Caloun himself apologised, at the commencement, for speaking without preparation or mature reflection. In fact we have heard an anecdote upon this subject which we deem worth relating. Mr. Calhoun did not intend to speak on the subject at all. His attention had been, almost exclusively occupied by the important subject of the currency, then in a very deranged state. He was on the Committee on the Currency. A distinguished member from Pennsylvania, while the tariff was under discussion, came to where he was sitting and said : “We are falling into confusion on the subject of the tariff, and you know that, if you permit amendments to a revenue bill, consisting of so many items, every one will insist upon the amendments particularly favorable to his constituents, and that the greatest confusion must be the o: sult”—and concluded by requesting Mr. Cal. houn to speak on the bill. , Mr. Calhoon replied, that he had not thought of the subject— that'his mind had been otherwise engaged, and that he had trusted to Mr. Lowndes, and the Committee of Ways and, Means, and that he was at a loss what to say. . His friend still ing him to speak, he "rose, without preparation, and delivered the speech which now, af. wer so long a time, Mr. Ritchie and others are anxious to pervert into evidence that Mr. Calhoun entertained sentiments in regard to a protective tariff which he never did. By way of illustration, and to show the real opinion of Mr. Calhoun, in regard to the tariff, in an incidental discussion in the year 1813, on a motion of Mr. McKim to prohibit the introduction of foreign goods, with a view to the encouragement of domestic manufactures, Mr. Calhoun opposed the motion, on the ground that the war itself was giving much more encouragement than was desirable, and that, on the return of peace, we would find ourselves greatly embarrassed by the new direction which the capital and industry of the country had received, in consequence of so great an encouragement—that our true policy was to permit the introduction of goods as freely as possible to diminish this embarrassment; but, while he a. vowed, these sentiments, he would be found, when peace returned, disposed to afford to the manufactures proper protection, in the adjustment of the tariff. In pursuing the course which he did in 1816, he but fulfilled this de

a recent number of the Enquirer, in which he undertakes to defend Mr. Van Buren against the charge af supporting the distribution of the surplus revenue among the States, according to .

the ratio of representation. He says: “This was Mr. Calhoun's ratio for distributing the bonus and profits of the United States Bank in re. lation to internal improvement.” If Mr. Ritchie will take the trouble of turning to the bonus bill, of which he has so frequently spoke, he will find that he is quite mistaken—that Mr. Calhoun never proposed to distribute the bonus among the States; or that there is any thing in the bill that "would countenance the odious system of distributing the surplus revenue among the several States. According to the plan ofthe bonus bill, it was to be applied, by Congress, to the subject of internal improvement, in the sex. eral States; and to prevent the unequal action or the exercise of power, without the approba; tion of the State, it provided that the fund should be applied proportionably to the repre: sentation of the several States, and with the consent of the State. It was far from the ob. ject of the bill to withdraw the control of Congress over the fund, but simply to regulate its application in order to ensure an equality of benefits. " Having touched this subject, we deem it proper to go farther into the views of Mr. Calhoun, as indicated by his public acts in reference

subject of the grossest misrepresentation. We have no doubt that one cause, and the leading one, why his views have been so misconstrued, is that he had the misfortune to have a bill, in' troduced and supported by him, rejected by Mr. Madison, and to have the weight of his au. thority thus to bear against him; but we are of an impression that this circumstance, fairly considered, ought not to produce the impression which it has done. Mr. Calhoun wasthe chair. man of the committee to which that portion of Mr. Madison's message which related to into.

impossible for any impartial mind to read to portion of the message, and to compare it wi the provisions of the bonus bill, and to assert that the latter went a single inch beyond the former. We give an extract from the message; it is as follows: se “Among the means of advancing the public interest, the occasion is a proper one for retalling the attention of Congress to the great importance of establishing throughout our coultry, the roads and canals which can best be located under the national authority. No object within the circle of political economy, so richly

to internal improvement, as they have been the

nal improvement, was referred; and we hold *

claration. His remarks in 1813 do as much ho-repays the expense bestowed on them; there

norto his sagacity, although just entering into are none, the utility of which is more universally

public life, as his course in 1816 did to his li-sassented to and acknowledged; none that domore

berality and sense of justice. - We trust that honor to the Government whose wise and

Mr. Ritchie is answered on the subject of the enlarged patriotism duly appreciates them.

tariff, but the tariff is not the only subject on|Nor is there any country which presents a field - o

« ForrigeFortsett »