And so on, with a great variety of other protected articles, such as Coal, Glass, Candles, Cotton Bugging, &c. to all which the proper addition is to be made for cash duties. diminished credits, and change in the poundsterling. The amount of the importation on these protected articles in 1830 exceeded $29,000,000, and the duties under the new bill will probably not fall far short of $12,000,000. pers, chamomile flow-which left not a shadow of doubt in my mind ers, coriander seed, as to the real sentiments of the tariff party, cantharides, castanas, or the principles intended to be embodied in catsup, chalk, coculus the new bill. The first was my amendment to indicus, coral, dates, Mr. Clay's resolution, which I proposed to filberts, filteringstones, bring down the duties gradually to the revenue frankincence, grapes, standard, adjusting them on the protected and gamboge, hemlock, unprotected articles on principles of perfect henbane, horn plates equality. My proposition was treated by the for lanterns, ox horns, tariff party as a scheme to destroy the manuother horns and tips, facturers, by pledging Congress to the ultimate India rubber, ipecacu- abandonment of the protecting system, which ana, ivory unmanufac- it was declared had become the settled politured, juniper berries, cy of the country. It was said that while an musk nuts of all kinds, immediate reduction to the revenue standard olives, oil of juniper, would be " sudden destruction to the manufacpaintings, & drawings, turers," a gradual reduction would be "a slow rattans unmanufactur-poison" and my proposition was rejected. My ed, reeds unmanufac- next motion was, to add to the clause of the tured, rhubarb, rotten bill imposing a duty of 16 cents a yard upon stone, tamarinds, tor- flannels, a PROVISO that the duty should in no toise shell, &c. &c. &c. case exceed 50 per cent. I had in my possession all free. documents derived from mercantile men, who To exhibit clearly the true character of this had long been engaged in the sale both of the bill, I will here state, that taking the whole im. foreign and domestic article, showing that flanportation of the year 1830, ($58,130,629,) it nels of the description used by the great mass appears from Colonel Drayton's own statement, of the laboring people in both countries, could that $29,120,626 were of protected articles, be purchased in England at 8 cts, equal to 10 leaving for the unprotected and free articles or 12 cts. the square yard, making the propo$29,010,046-on which there will be levied, sed duty on coarse flannels used by the poor 160 under the new bill, a nett revenue (after deduct-per cent, while on the finest descriptionjof flaning drawbacks, adding the duties omitted, and nels used by the rich, the duty was but 32 per the valuation of the pound sterling) on the pro- cent. Yet this proposition was rejected, on the tected articles of $10,224,595, and on the un- ground that a duty of 50 per cent was insuffiprotected and free articles of only $3,227,353. cient for the effectual protection of the AmerA statement, with which I have been furnished ican manufacturer of flannels, while the disexhibiting this result, is hereto annexed.† crimination between the fine and the coarse Putting out of view other clear indications of article was justified on the ground that it was the the spirit by which the late Congress was ani- coarse flannels which were chiefly manufactured mated in the arrangement of the tariff, there this country. I was unable to construe this were four distinct propositions made by myself vote in any other way than that the protecting in the Senate-all cordially and zealously sup- system was to be maintained inviolate, howev ported by the southern members-the fate of er unjustly, unequally, and oppressively it †STATEMENT. might operate upon the community; for surely if there be any one article in the whole cataValue of Duties as Am'nt of logue of our domestic and foreign productions imports 1 modified duties aft- which the people at large, and especially the year to by act of er deductSep.1830 July, 1832. ing draw-poor have a right to obtain, subject to the smallest possible amount of taxation, it is an article like flannels, which is essential to the comfort, health and safety of their families; an article too, in relation to which, the manufacturers had long enjoyed a complete monopoly, and must have acquired skill from ample experience. It is true that the duty on this arti cle has been reduced from 22 to 16 cents, but on the coarse flannels this reduction is merely nominal, the duty still exceeding 100 per cent. 20,170,016 11,724,595 10,225,505 and being actually prohibitory, and surely it 8,840.000 3,727,353||3,227,353 can make no difference whether prohibition be 58,130,675 15,451,948 13,451,948 effected by a duty of 50 or 200 per cent. My next proposition was to strike out that fraudu These consist of over-estimates of reductions on wool-lent device, the minimums on cottons, by which lens, cotton bagging, twist, yarn, hardware, &c. Whole importation Add omissions in duties Protected articles Add duties omitted Add difference in pound sterling Unprotected articles 58,130,675 15,126,959 backs. 15,451,948 13,451,948 29,120,629 10,962,716 324,989 436,890 Col. Draytou makes this amount greater, but this arian article costing 5 or 6 cents a yard, was to scs from his having taken from the gross amount of du- be deemed and taken to have cost 35 cents," ties to which had been added the change in the pound and to pay duty accordingly. My colleague stetling, the duties on the protected articles, without adding thereto the change in the pound sterling. Mr. McDuffie had attempted the same thing in " policy of the country, or as to the true construc- expect, that the garrison of a fort should lay tion of the powers to lay and collect taxes, or down their arms and surrender at discretion, in to regulate commerce. I think I have here the expectation of being permitted to resume fairly collected from the address all that is ma- them, and march out with all the honors of war. terial in relation to this point; except that Col. It would be almost as absurd as to summon a Drayton intimates "that though the majority fortress to surrender, with a declaration that if acquiesced in this compromise, it was not so exe- the garrison did not capitulate, we would raise cuted as to be free from objections," and that the siege. I will not say what effect the new the partisans of nullification" (meaning, I bill, passed as it has been in spite of the remon presume, a majority of the Representatives strances and protests of a majority of the dele. from Georgia and South Carolina, and the other gations of South Carolina and Georgia, and of a southern members who voted against the bill,) large portion of the representatives of the other "did not subscribe to these terms." Now, for southern States, may have on our future prosmyself and in behalf of my colleagues, with pects; but this I will say, that if these "partiwhom I acted on that occasion, I can only say sans of nullification," as Col. Drayton has been that we were no parties to any such compact, pleased to call them, had united with him in rewhether express or implied. I remember to ceiving that bill as a compromise, the door to have heard rumors in Washington that such an hope would have been effectually and forever arrangement had been proposed by some of the closed. With regard to the idea, that in voting supporters of Mr. Van Buren, who deemed it for such a measure no sanction was given to the necessary to quiet the claims of the south, in principle of protection, which it is admitted is order to smooth his way to succession, but I embraced in it, or to the gross inequality and was not aware of the fact that any compromise injustice of its provisions, but simply a prefer whatever had been proposed or acceded to on ence expressed for it over the tariff of 1828, the subject. The "partisans of nullification" "as a choice of evils," I can only say, that for could not have subscribed to terms, concerning myself, I utterly disclaim the right of a majori which they were not consulted. We were not ty of Congress to impose upon me an obligaadmitted to the counsels of that majority, who, tion, by my own vote, to inflict upon my conit now seems in order to meet the crisis" by stituents one or the other of two measures, both an immediate remedy, were willing to postpone unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust. They all efforts for the repeal of the protecting sys- only are the authors of the evil, who commit tem to a more convenient season.. If I had the sin, and a ruffian might just as well underconsented to enter into a "co-operation" with take to make me a participator in the guilt of the friends of protection, and, for the purpose murder, by requiring me to decide whether of carrying such a compromise into effect, had his dagger shall be planted in the bosom of my voted for the new bill; and "such a vote had brother or my son, as for a majority in Conbeen cited to prove that I was inconsistent and gress to require me to choose between two treacherous to my duty," I might have urged such bills as the tariff of 1828, and the tariff of (I will not say as a "subterfuge") that by 1832. The plain dictates of morality, as well declining to vote for the act of 1832, I would as of common sense, it seems to me, require us have virtually contributed to rivet upon my in all such cases, after honestly using our utfellow citizens the greater oppression of 1828," most efforts to accomplish what is right, to but I should have been "confounded and si- leave the responsibility with those who have the lenced by the reply:" that the South Carolina power to do justice, yet resolve to commit inDelegation, even if they had been unanimous justice. I freely admit that there may be queson the subject, had no authority whatever to tions of mere expediency in which a sound disbarter away the rights of their constituents; cretion in this respect must be exercised; but in that by becoming parties to an arrangement in questions of principle we have no right to which there was no stipulation whatever, that choose the lesser, to avoid the greater evil, or the protecting system was to be eventually aban- in the language of holy writ, to do evil that doned, or any further reduction of the duties good may come of it." In the particular hereafter to be made, we had effectually closed case before us, the difference between refusthe door of hope and delivered our fellow citi-ing to vote for the repeal of the tariff of 1828, zens, bound hand and foot,into the power of the manufacturers; for surely no man can be so blind as not to see, if the late bill is to be considered as "a compromise," that an implied obligation is imposed, that we shall submit quietly to its provisions, and they must have form ed a very different opinion of the spirit by which the tariff party are governed, from that which I entertain, who suppose, that with a distinct understanding on their part that we will submit to the oppression, there can remain any hope for the south.. To expect any further reduction of duties on the protected articles under such circumstances, would, it seem to me, be as extravagant as to by voting for a bill equally objectionable in principle, and actually voting for that tariff, would be the same in my estimation as re nainng borne down by an oppression forced upon us in spite of our struggles, and " forging the chains ourselves by which our liberty is manacled." The difference between finding ourselves in a state of colonial vassalage," brought upon us by the injustice of others and entering into a compromise to remain so, until from a returning sense of justice, our oppressors shall consent to our release. What would our ancestors have aid of a proposition to ef fect a partial repeal of the Stamp Act, or to reduce the tax upon tea to 2d a pound, provided of dollars," it will be seen from the very form bills, on the very same articles to be made free of the expressions here used, as well as the under both bills, is reported to be $2,168,039 whole scope and character of the address, that under the former, and $6,607,761 under the minute accuracy as to the amount of reduction, latter. was not aimed at, and under the circumstances I make this statement with no view of casting of the case, must have been altogether unat- any imputations upon the distinguished gentainable Our opposition to the new bill de- tleman at the head of the Treasury Department, pended in no degree upon the question whe- or impeaching the fidelity of his agents. I ther the bill was to effect "an inconsiderable state these facts merely for the purpose of show. reduction on the protected articles, or to in- ing why it is, that I am not even now disposed crease the duty by an equal amount a few to rely very implici ly on the accuracy even of hundred thousand dollars, more or less, in ad- the new Treasury statement, which Colonel justing a revenue of 25 or 30 millions, being of Drayton assumes as conclusive on all the points little importance in our estimation." The ge- in dispute. Without going into minute calcuneral character of the bill was manifest on its lations on the subject, I will here take up the face-it had clearly aggravated the inequality statements submitted by Col. D. himself, and and injustice of the system, by greatly reduc- prove from his own showing, that the former ing or taking off entirely the duties on the un-estimated reduction on the protected articles protected articles, while the duties on the pro- has heretofore, been grossly exaggerated. I tected articles remained substantially the same. will offer to the public the data which will The amount of reduction on the latter could not enable every man to calculate for himself of course be accurately ascertained. In the Se- whether the burthen of the protecting system" nate, it was not claimed to be more than a few has been increased or diminished, and to what hundred thousand dollars; and when against extent under the bill. this there was to be set off an acknowledged Let it here be borne in mind, that the pubincrease of the duties upon some article, toge-lic have heretofore been made to believe, that ther with the introdution of new and oppres-a reduction had actually been effected "of sive regulations, such as cash duties, dimin- $12,000,000, of which upwards of $3,000,000 ished credits, and change in the pound sterling, were on the protected articles." It is now it certainly cannot be considered strange that admitted, however, by Col. Drayton, on the the authors of the address should have express-authority of the new Treasury statement, that ed the belief, (and they did not venture to do there will be a reduction of only $1,869,056 of more,) that taking all these into consideration, the amount of duties on protected articles, and "the burdens of the protecting system had been in the whole of only $3,187,078, without makincreased." If without the advantage of any ing on the former any deduction for the "cash new Treasury statement, they have committed duties, diminished credits, or change in the even greater errors than those which have been pound sterling." Col. D. has, in a note, callaid to their charge, it would certainly have culated the amount of these at $759,949, which been much more easily accounted for than the being deducted from the $1,869,056, leaves a mistake lately committed by the Treasury it-reduction on protected articles of $1,109,107; self of near one million and a half of dollars, in and if this amount be deducted from the "agthe estimated amount of reduction on the sin-gregate reduction," as stated by Col. Drayton, gle article of cottons-or that committed by Col. it will make the reduction on the unprotected Drayton himself, to the amount of three mil-articles under the new bill, in round numbers, lions, which we have just pointed out. In mak-about $4,000,000; while it will be seen, that ing estimates of this nature, it is impossible to on the protected articles, it is but a little more obtain any other data for our calculations than than one million. But on looking at the data the official statements of the Treasury; and assumed by Col. Drayton, as the basis of his these, I am sorry to say, have been so contra-calculation, it will be seen that while, in statdictory, as to furnish but feeble lights to guide ing the aggregate reduction at $5,187,078, he us through the labyrinth of complicated cal- has taken the nett revenue, (after deducting culations. At best, these statements have, so drawbacks and expenses of collection,) in arfar, proved but blind guides-often contradic riving at the amount of reduction on the pro-, tory and irreconcileable with each other. Mis tected articles, he has made his calculations on take after mistake has been pointed out, and the gross revenue, (viz. on $15,126,959, instead error after error detected. Five different re- of $12,101,567.) Now, it is very clear that the ports have been submitte to Congress in refe-same data must be assumed in both cases; and rence to the estimated amount of reduction on it being equally clear that drawbacks (being the protected and unprotected articles, under the the amount of duties restored to the importer various bills that have been before that body, and on goods that do not enter into the consump by assuming the nell revenue as the basis of the tion of the country) constitute no part of the calculation in one case, and the gross revenue public burdens, the nett revenue is the only in the other; in one case taking the fiscal, and true basis of our calculations. Leaving out another the calender year-including the draw-"the expenses of collection," and deducting backs in one statement, and excluding them in the assumed amount of the drawbacks on the another-so great a variation has been produc- former and present duties on the protected ar in the results, that in one instance the amount ticles, (according to Col. Drayton's estimate of of reduction under Dickerson's and McLane's these duties,) would reduce the amount of the |