but while I do not believe that this surplus of the President's message here, the House of Rep$14,000,000 will produce any great commercial resentatives should indicate their determination to revulsion, still I object to its remaining there and prostrate this policy forever. But, sir, recent deaccumulating. It may lead to improvident legis-velopments lead me to believe that neither the lation, and hence I should be willing to see the Administration purchasing up our bonds at fifteen or even twenty per cent. premium. MODIFICATION OF THE TARIFF. SPEECH OF HON. J. S. MILLSON, very different from mine. Since that time he has OF VIRGINIA. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the Tariff question; delivered in the Committee of the Whole, on the motion to refer the Annual Message of the President to the several committees. Mr. MILLSON said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: My friend from Ohio, [Mr. STANTON, Who has just taken his seat, is a perfect embodiment of the effete protective policy. I shall have something to say presently, in reply to some of the positions he has assumed in this debate. Before I do so, however, I wish to address myself to the subject more immediately before the committee. Just one week ago, the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] introduced a resolution providing that so much of the President's message as relates to the tariff and revenue from customs should be referred to a select committee, with power to examine witnesses and collect testimony here and elsewhere, and with instructions to report as soon as possible upon the same, with a bill reducing the duties on imports, to such an amount as may be required for an economical administration of the Government. The introduction of this resolution gave me great satisfaction. I had long desired; I will not say expected, a movement of this sort; but I had not dared to hope that such a resolution would have been first submitted by a gentleman on the other side of the House. I'desired it because, as I said a day or two ago, I have thought, from the very moment of the passage of the tariff of 1846, that these duties were, to a great extent, protective, and that they ought to be materially reduced. At a large Democratic meeting held in my own city, a few days after the passage of that act, I had the honor to submit a resolution upon this subject, which was unanimously adopted. It was in these words: "Resolved, therefore, That this meeting warmly approves the passage of the tariff act of 1846, regarding it as only the first step on the part of the United States towards that more liberal and enlightened system of international intercourse which is about to be established throughout the world, and believing that it will ere long be followed by such further reductions of duties as are imperatively demanded by the spirit of the age." I confess I felt some surprise that this movement for the reduction of the tariff should have been commenced by the gentleman from New York; but I was not less pleased than surprised. I differ from some of my friends in believing that the present is a very appropriate time for the consideration of this most important subject. It is true, as my friend from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] has intimated, that the Administration is about to retire from power; but if the gentleman from New York is to be regarded as speaking the wishes of the Administration, I am perfectly willing to concede to Mr. Fillmore the honor of effecting the final overthrow of the protective policy. The President elect recently said that the hour of triumph was the hour of magnanimity; and if the present President of the United States desires to prostrate the protective system, why, in the spirit of magnanimity, I am willing to concede that credit to him Mr. STANLY. I wish to inquire if this movement is by authority of the Administration. I understood it to be an individual movement on the part of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.] Mr. MILLSON. I was about to consider the subject in both aspects, and on either supposition. If the gentleman from New York did not express the sentiments and wishes of the Administration, if he meant to oppose the views contained in the President's message, then I was willing, as one conscientiously opposed to the whole protective policy, that on the very day after the reception of President nor the gentleman himself desired to do any harm to the protective system. For although the language of the resolution was such as I heartily approved, and although the gentleman himself says that he disclosed his hand and told us what he was seeking, yet it seems that his purposes were introduced another resolution differing materially from the first. That resolution does not contain any instruction to reduce the duties, but simply provides "that so much of the President's message as relates to the tariff and customs from ' revenue shall be referred to a select committee, 3 with power to examine witnesses and collect testimony here and elsewhere, and with instructions 'to report by bill or otherwise on or before the 25th January next." Now, I am by no means willing to go for the second resolution of the gentleman from New York, unless it sh ll be amended either by the adoption of the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. LoCKHART,] or that suggested by the gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES.] Without these amendments, I will not vote to create this committee, for the reason that it will be nothing more than such a commission as has been raised in the Senate, and from which no good would be likely to come, at least to those who do not want to confirm and bolster up the protective policy. The gentleman from New York and I differ widely in regard to the objects to be secured by the adoption even of his first resolution. Looking to the language of the resolution which instructed the committee to report a bill reducing the duties on imports, I gave it my hearty support; and I may be permitted to confess my regret that it was not voted for, more generally, by gentlemen upon this side of the House. I must also express my surprise, that so many of the friends of protection, perhaps unwarily, gave their votes for its adoption. I do not think the course of either party would be precisely the same now as it was last Tuesday. I doubt if gentlemen upon the other side of the House would be so willing to vote for the resolution of the gentleman from New York as they then were; and I do not believe the gentleman from New York would be himself willing to vote for his own resolution if it were before us now, in the precise shape in which he first introduced it. The gentleman's object was to reduce the duties by enlarging the free list, and he said that that was an object common to both sides of the House. He wishes to abolish the duties on the raw materials entering into the composition of manufactured articles. The gentleman says: "It seems to me that to this proposition there should be no objection. And I hope that there will be no objection on any side of the House to an enlargement of the lists of free articles and a reduction or abolition of duty upon many of the articles which enter into the composition of manu factures; for, in the first place, my Whig friends are aware that that will be a species of incidental, legitimate protection, of which the other side of the House cannot complain." The gentleman is mistaken; we do complain and will complain of any such protection: "And my Democratic friends will be aware that whatever contemplates a reduction of the revenue in any form, if it be to reduce the price of the manufactured article consumed, as they contend it does, is a proposition which has already met with favor, and which in its details cannot but be admitted into favor by them again.” Now, I admit that the gentleman from New York is entirely right in supposing that by placing on the free list the various articles which enter into the composition of domestic manufactures, you will probably reduce the prices of the manufactured articles. In that respect the people of the country, as consumers of those articles, will perhaps save something; but they will be losers to a very great extent in a particular to which the gentleman has not referred, if the duty should be abolished upon dye-stuffs, and the raw material entering into the composition of domestic fabrics. Suppose the existing duty of five per cent. on dye-stuffs to amount to five per cent. of the cost of the manufactured article. It is unquestionably true that by the abolition of this duty the price of the article might, and perhaps would, be reduced five per If it sold for one dollar before, it could be cent. Ho. OF REPS. sold for ninety-five cents afterwards. But this saving of price to the consumer could not be effected without considerable loss to the people in other respects, which I will proceed to explain. Let me suppose that our consumption of a particular kind of manufactures amounts to two hundred dollars, one half of them being made in this country, and the other half imported from abroad. Each article sells for one dollar. The price of the American article is composed of two elements; the cost, ninety-five cents, and the duty upon the raw material entering into its composition, amounting to five per cent., together making one dollar. The elements of price in the foreign article are cost, seventy cents, and duty thirty cents. Now, sir, the abolition of the duty of five per cent., by placing the raw material on the free list, will enable the American manufacturer to sell the article at ninety-five cents instead of a dollar, which must continue to be the price of the foreign article, and ne thus gets rid of competition from abroad, and monopolizes the market. For the foreign article will not be imported if it cannot be sold without loss; and as the cost and duty together amount to one dollar, it cannot, without loss, be sold for ninety-five cents. Now, sir, the people, it is true, gain five per cent. on each hundred dollars of value, making on the whole consumption of two hundred dollars a gain of ten dollars. But what do they lose? They lose in their revenue five per cent., or five dollars, from the abolition of the duty which they get from the raw material used in making the domestic manufactures; and they also lose the thirty per cent., or thirty dollars, which they levied upon the hundred dollars worth of foreign articles imported. The gain to the people, as consumers, is ten dollars; the loss to the Treasury of the people, which of course is their own loss, is thirty-five dollars. Now, sir, I am not willing to save to the people ten dollars at the cost of thirty-five dollars. We should reduce the duty upon manufactured fabrics in precisely the same proportion that we reduce it upon the raw material, otherwise there will be no balancing of the loss and gain. If at the same time that you abolish the five per cent. duty on the raw material you reduce the duty correspondingly upon the imported manufactures, then the loss to the revenue will be compensated by the gain to the people in the consumption of the article. To abolish the duty upon the raw material without a corresponding reduction upon imported fabrics, would be precisely equivalent to an appropriation of the amount of the duty out of the Treasury, to be bestowed in bounties to the manufacturers, to sustain them against foreign competition. This view of the case leads me to notice the argument submitted yesterday by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. JONES,] who said that it made no difference to the people of the country whether, when money was to be raised, you selected two articles and imposed an equal duty on each, or whether you exempted one altogether, and imposed a double duty upon the other. Sir, in addition to the answers given by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. CLINGMAN] and my colleague, [Mr. MEADE,] I suggest another, and it is this: That the very object of the imposition of the double duty upon one article is to give protection to similar articles of domestic manufacture, by preventing, orat least diminishing, the importation of those foreign articles that would come into competition with them. If this were not the object, there would be no reason for it at all; and if this object were not to some extent accomplished, it would not be attempted. The result, then, is, that instead of collecting the whole amount of duty as before, you exclude, perhaps, half the articles formerly imported, and, of course, get only half the duty. If, after subjecting an article to a double duty, you continued to import the same quantity as before, you would undoubtedly collect the same revenue by putting the whole burden upon one article and exempting the other, as when you divided it between the two. But, as I have shown, the effect will be to diminish the importation, and, of course, to diminish the revenue; and you will then be subjected to the necessity of imposing new taxes upon some new subject of taxation to make up the deficiency. Mr. JONES, of Pennsylvania, (interposing.) 32D CONG.....1st SESS. I wish to correct the gentleman as to my position. It was this, that it made no difference whether the tax was imposed upon one of two articles, or equally upon both, provided the article upon which it was imposed was an article of general consumption and equally distributed the burden among the masses of the consumers. Mr. MILLSON. Well, sir, the gentleman surely had an object in urging that argument, and his object undoubtedly was to show that incidental protection might properly be given to particular interests in this country, by the imposition of a larger duty upon competing articles imported from abroad, than upon articles which did not come in competition with those of our own production. That being the case, there would have been no force at all in the argument of the gentleman, unless he meant to contend that the reason for imposing high duties upon some articles and exempting others from all taxes, was to give incidental protection to the manufacturers of the articles thus selected for taxation. And I am now proceeding to show that there must be a loss to the people from such an arrangement of duties, because if it secured the desired protection, as it undoubtedly would, to some extent, it could only be by excluding a portion of the foreign fabrics which come into competition with our own. The revenue would thus be reduced, and we should be compelled to lay new taxes to supply the deficiency. This is not the only loss, and it is by no means the greatest. It is indeed the most inconsiderable. The burden which is most grievous is the increase in the cost of what we have occasion to use, by compelling us to purchase from the domestic manufacturer at prices more than his wares are worth. I say more than his wares are worth, because, but for the pains taken to exclude similar foreign wares by an amount of duty which only a few of them can bear, we should be able to purchase them at far lower rates of price. I suggest, then, to the gentleman from New York, and to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that the people have never complained of those duties which bring money into the Treasury. They complain of those duties which keep money out of the Treasury. They complain of the operation of those duties which, while they are laid seemingly with a view to the collection of revenue, are really imposed for the purpose of giving protection to certain domestic interests by the exclusion of a large amount of foreign importations. Now, we all know that under the operation of the tariff of 1842, and perhaps under the operation of the tariff of 1846, the consuming classes of this country pay a much larger amount for the protection of certain interests, in some of the States, than they contribute to the revenue of the United States. Why, sixteen protected articles alone, under the tariff of 1842, were estimated to impose a tax of upwards of $76,000,000 upon the consumption of the country, in addition to the amount contributed by the people to the revenue. I cannot, then, go with the gentleman from New York in his efforts to enlarge the free lists by abolishing the trifling duties now imposed upon the raw materials used by the manufacturers. This would only aggravate the existing evil. They bring money into the Treasury, and, as I have shown, they serve to protect us from losses to which their abolition would to some extent expose us. No, sir; the duties that I desire to see reduced are those amounting to thirty or forty dollars in the hundred, which are laid not so much for the purpose of raising revenue as of destroying revenue; that add nothing to the common Treasury, which is our common property, but serve only to transfer millions from the possession of the agricultural, mechanical, and commercial classes of our people, into the pockets of other and less numerous classes without a fair equivalent. But after all, what is meant by this demand for the exemption of the raw material from all duty? What is the raw material? Are we to consider such, whatever requires labor to fit it for its ultimate use? Then, sir, iron is the raw material of the smith; cloth is the raw material of the tailor; silk plush of the modern hatter; sugar of the confectioner. Are we to exempt all these from duty? Perhaps the gentleman from New York would be more unwilling to do so than I should be. In assuming, Mr. Chairman, that a reduction The Tariff-Mr. Millson. of five per cent. upon the manufactured article would be necessary to balance the reduction of five per cent. upon the imported materials, which enter into the composition of our domestic fabrics, I merely take those sums for the sake of convenient and simple illustration. The cost of the raw material may not be more than one twentieth of the whole cost of the manufactured article; and of course, the present duty, which is only five per cent., would be only one twentieth of that, or one four-hundredth part of the whole cost. That would be equivalent to a tax of only twenty-five cents on a hundred dollars of value. It is only for the sake of illustration, that I assume a reduction of five per cent. in the duty imposed on the imported fabric, as balancing a reduction of five per cent. on the raw material. In connection with this subject, I desire to notice the positions taken by the President of the United States in his last annual message. The President says: "Without repeating the arguments contained in my former message, in favor of discriminating protective duties, I deem it my duty to call your attention to one or two other considerations affecting this subject. The first is, the effect of large importations of foreign goods upon our currency. Most of the gold of California, as fast as it is coined, finds its way directly to Europe in payment for goods purchased." It seems to me the President has adopted a somewhat inverted order of explaining his views. He calls our attention to the effect of the large importation of foreign goods upon our currency. He has mistaken the effect for the cause. He might as well have invited our attention to the effect produced by the flowing of a river upon the attraction of gravitation. Why, sir, it is the increase of the currency which has produced these large importations. It is because of the large exportation of gold, taken from the mines of California, that our imports have increased. Yet the President calls our attention to the effect of these large foreign imports upon the currency of the country. He says that the gold from California finds its way out of the country as soon as it is coined. Certainly it does. For what purpose HO. OF REPS. community, cannot but be a sort of injustice to the bona fide holders. But the President seems to fear that there will soon be a commercial revulsion-that another crisis is at hand! Sir, I see nothing to justify such an apprehension, if the official reports are correct, as I presume they are. What does the President tell us in his last message? He says that the imports during the last year amounted to $207,240,101, to which add the specie imported, $5,262,643, and the total imports were $212,502,744. The exports, exclusive of specie, were $149,861,911; foreign merchandise reëxported $17,204,026; specie, $42,507,285; making a total of $209,573,222. Sir, the returns of the preceding year exhibit a like healthy condition of things. From these returns the excess of the imports seems to be only $2,929,522; from which I infer that we have still a large credit in Europe upon the transactions of the last year, the exports being greatly more than enough to settle the apparent balance against us. It may be said that although there is an excess of only $2,929,522 of imports over the exports, this is because so large a proportion of the exports has been in specie. If we turn to the President's message, we will find that the exports of specie have been only $42,000,000, and the imports $5,000,000, showing an excess of exports over imports of $37,000,000, which is an amount greatly below the products of the California gold mines. At this day, according to the official statement of the President of the United States, we have a larger amount of specie in the country, than we had at the commencement of the fiscal year. I have not been able to obtain any accurate statement of the products of the California mines, but I presume they have been at least as large as those of the mines of Australia; and we know that during the last year $50,000,000 have been produced from those mines. I take it for granted, therefore, that $50,000,000 have been produced from the mines of California. What, then, do we see? We have exported only $37,000,000, was it taken from the mines, if it was not to be while we have received from the California mines used in the purchase of commodities? Would the $50,000,000, leaving a large surplus or balance rePresident have it kept at home, instead of ex- maining in the country beyond the quantity we changing it for those articles which are necessary had at the beginning of the year. Now, I say for our comfort and enjoyment? How would that that we should probably have been in a more add to our national wealth? Can a nation, any wholesome condition, if still larger quantities of more than an individual, advance its interests or gold had been sent away. We might not then promote its happiness by hoarding up its money, have had that expansion of prices which has proand constantly adding to its store, without apply-duced such an alteration in the relations between ing it to the purchase from others of such things debtor and creditor, and has caused so much inas we may want? In that case we should soon convenience, and even distress among many of realize the fable of Midas starving on his golden the working classes. banquet. Were the immense amounts of gold taken from the mines in California retained at home, instead of being diffused throughout the world, the consequences would be most disastrous to us. I fear that even as it is, the large quantities of gold, annually added to our circulation from the mines in California and Australia, must produce much mischief. Sir, when I first heard, some five or six years ago, of the discovery of gold in California, I felt and expressed serious apprehensions as to the results. I feared that the great influx of gold would too much inflate the currency of the country, bloat prices, and unsettle the transactions of life. It is a great error to suppose that it is desirable to increase the quantities of money. This cannot be done without diminishing its value. Sir, what is money? I have not time fully to develop my views upon this subject; it would furnish a theme for a protracted discourse. I will only state that money, in its strict and proper use and office, is but a token or sign of the claim of the holder upon the community for something earned, but not received. Wherever the use of money is known, this claim is acknowledged, and its extent is measured by the quantity or conventional value of these tokens. Upon an universal settlement of accounts, if such a thing were possible, all the money in the world would be in the possession, in greater or less quantities, of those who were found to be creditors upon such a settlement, or of those to whom they might from time to time have assigned it. Vast additions of money, therefore, beyond the amount necessary to repair the annual losses, made to the existing circulation by those who take it with little labor from the mines, and are not in truth the creditors of the But, sir, as to this excess of imports over exports, appearing in our official returns, it has always been the case. From the foundation of our Government to the present time, our statistics will show that there has been an apparent excess of imports over exports of several hundred millions of dollars. The late returns give us no reason to apprehend that what is called the balance of trade has been against us during the present or the past year. The value of the exports will always, in the official returns, fall below the value of the imports. It has always been so, and will always continue to be so. There are many credits to which we are entitled, that cancel these apparent balances against us, but which never appear in the official returns of our exports. Freight, and commercial profits in themselves, amount to considerable sums. Mr. Walker, in one of his reports to Congress, says that the products of our whale fisheries are even included in the list of imports, to the amount of several millions yearly. But suppose it were true that our imports did far exceed our exports. It is the fashion of the day to consider this a very disastrous state of things. Even Mr. Walker seems to have fallen into the prevailing error, if it be one--for I speak of so eminent an authority with all possible diffidence of supposing that if the imports of a nation are greatly above the exports, it would be a very unhappy condition of affairs. Now, I am not treating the subject in its moral relations, and in its connection with good faith and honesty, but as a mere question of political economy. I say, that if for a long series of years, a nation receives more than it returns-if the wealth added to it exceeds that taken from it, our sympathies would be somewhat 32D CONG....1st SESS. misapplied if we should bewail her condition. If she should never pay the balance at all, we might be excused perhaps for sympathizing with those unfortunate creditors who hold unsatisfied demands against her. I know that the effort to pay, and the consequent decline of prices, often occasion real distress; but I am speaking of the condition of a country that should always receive more than it gave, if indeed such a state of things was ever known. But I will go on with the President's message. He says: The Tariff-Mr. Millson. have to bear the burdens of these taxes, to make up a fund sufficient to support these unprofitable laborers in absolute idleness, provided they were then left at liberty to supply their wants in the cheaper markets of the world. It would be some consolation to us, under the operation of a protective tariff, to know that what was lost by us, was wholly gained by the protected classes; but it is hardly fair to impose a tax upon our people of fifty, or a hundred per cent., to enable the manufacturers to make ten. No, sir, the surest way to protect American labor, is to develop our resources, and cultivate our best talent. We cannot make a better world than the Almighty has made. It is said that Mr. Pope, applying a very exaggerated sort of flattery to Sir Godfrey Kneller, once whispered to him that if he had been conThe President here complains, first, that thou-sulted at the creation he could have furnished some sands of citizens are thrown out of employment; and secondly, that the farmer loses the home market that is to say, he can no longer sell anything to those thousands of citizens who are thrown out of employment. "In the second place, as our manufacturing establishments are broken down by competition with foreigners, the capital invested in them is lost; thousands of honest and industrious citizens are thrown out of employment, and the farmer to that extent is deprived of a home market for the sale of his surplus produce." useful hints. The vain old man replied, "I think The President complains of the loss of our home Now, as to the first head of complaint, the President seems to think that it is the great object of civilized society to give employment to labor, without regard to its productiveness, but merely for the sake of its employment. I might say, in reply, that it is one of the objects of civilization, to throw labor out of employment, at least temporarily, and that this is always done when a new labor-saving machine is invented. The world generally regards him as the greatest benefactor of his species, who, in this way, succeeds in throwing the largest number of men out of employment. Would it be deemed a national calamity, if some person should invent a machine by which one man was enabled to do the work of fifty? We know that every such machine, though its first effect is to deprive men of employment, only adds to the demand for human labor. The great object is to make labor profitable, and to dispense with all that is unprofitable. If it be true, then, that opening our markets to foreign competition, will have the effect of enabling us to dispense with the unprofitable labor of any portion of our own population, it would be no more a subject of regret, than if such labor had been superseded by the invention of some new machine. Sir, if it was the object of society to give employment to labor, however unprofitable it might be, it could be very readily accomplished. You need do nothing more than destroy all your labor-saving machines. But you wish to employ your neighbor in preferencement to them in their new pursuits. This demand to foreigners. And so do I, where his labor is productive. But the world would soon stand still -nay, would speedily retrograde, if you should foster unproductive industry, merely because it was your neighbor's! Would you employ your neighbor to cut down your harvest with knives instead of scythes, for the sake of employing the largest number, and for the longest time? Would you call in your neighbor doctor to prescribe for you when you are not sick, or when a simple root would cure you of your ailment, for the benevo-ket is created by compelling us to buy from those lent purpose of giving him something to do? No, sir. It may be true-I hope it is true that by the abolition of protective duties, you throw out of employment men engaged in the production of articles for which they are not fitted; and if that was not the effect, no good would be done by the abolition of protective duties. That is the end contemplated; that is the end designed. For whenever there are men who, by legislative means, are enabled to compel the people of this country to pay more for any article than it is worth, I desire that the market should be opened to competition, even though they might thus be thrown out of employment. The great object should be to give employment to productive and useful labor. The increasing population of the world demands a corresponding increase in the productiveness of human labor. Destroy your labor-saving machines, abandon the use of horses, mules, and other labor which comes in competition with the labor of man, and the large population now upon the globe would perish miserably. They could not be sustained. In order to secure employment to unprofitable labor, you must tax the country to an amount greatly exceeding the benefit resulting to the parties protected; and it would be better for those who of the manufacturers for the commodities which who sell the protected commodities, for which we The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STANTON] said them. But gentlemen say that we must build up a home market, as foreign nations will not buy our productions. This is a great mistake in fact, but it is a no less serious error of principle. The method HO. OF REPS. adopted for creating the home market, is by excluding their manufactures by a protective tariff, and compelling the people to buy and sell at home. Now, this very necessity for legislative exclusion proves that we could get their manufactures if this means were not resorted to. How could we get them unless we paid for them in our productions, or at least in money? As long as we have either, why shall we be prevented from buying them? If they will not take our productions in exchange, and we have no more money to send them, why, then, they will no longer consent to supply us. If they did, we should get their goods for nothing. Depend upon it, sir, they will not do that. If, then, they will not take our agricultural productions, there is no necessity for our resolving that we will not take their goods, for we could not get them if we would. The prohibition, then, if it has any practical operation, is mischievous; if it has none, it is absurd. The President says: Surely the President cannot suppose that the recent increase in the price of iron is in any way connected with the tariff of 1846. But let me examine his general argument. The position that the destruction of our manufactures-I suppose he means those only that cannot be sustained without the aid of the Government-would leave the foreigner without any competition in our market, and that the price would consequently be raised, is altogether erroneous. There is a very fashionable mode of stating the argument upon this subject, and that is by speaking, not of foreign manufacturers, but of the foreign manufacturer, as if there was but one foreign manufacturer in the world. Though perhaps not designed, the argument is pressed, exactly as if we had but one person competing with our manufacturers abroad, and that, in a certain contingency, he was to have the monopoly of our markets, and to demand such prices as he pleased. The President seems to have adopted this form of expression. He speaks of the foreigner, and of his competition with us, and of our competition with him. He forgets that there are hundreds of thousands of foreigners all competing, not only with us, but with one another. Suppose it was true, then, that the abolition of the duty would either immediately or remotely raise the price, what would be the result? If these foreign manufacturers, notwithstanding the heavy duty of thirty or forty per cent. which they pay, can compete as they now do with our own, then, if they should raise their prices after the abolition of the duty, or continue to demand and receive the same prices as before, they would add the whole amount of this duty to their former profits. If their present profits excite competition abroad, how much more would that competition be stimulated, when, in addition to the small profits they now get, they secured the larger profit equal to the heavy tax now imposed upon them? No man pretends that the profits of our own manufacturers are equal to the duty upon the foreign article. But, upon the President's supposition of a rise of prices, the profit of the foreign manufacturers would be greater than the duty upon the protected article. If, then, this smaller profit at home excites competition here, how much more would the greater profit abroad stimulate competition there. No, sir, the result could not be as the President supposes. The abolition of the duty would not be followed by a rise of price. The market would not be secured to the foreigner without competition. You would have a more active competition than before; for the manufacturers of the whole world would compete with one another to supply your wants. This competition would be much greater than the combined competition of foreigners and our own manufacturers, under the operation of the protective system. The reason is obvious, The high prices occasioned by the heavy duties diminish consumption. There would be a less number of men necessary to supply the smaller demand, than would be employed to supply the larger consumption that would follow the cheapening of the price. There is no force, then, in the argument The rule should be to fix such a duty as will raise Ho. OF REPS. in these United States is now protected by a prohibitory tariff; that is, the slave-breeding interest of Virginia and the other northern slave States. We protect the slave grower by visiting the penalty of death upon those who import slaves to the injury of our own citizens, who rear boys and girls for the market. These facts stand prominent upon the history of our times. We have secured to the slave-dealers of this nation a monop that you diminish the number of competitors by abolishing protective duties. I had hoped that no one, in this age of the world, would have again urged the argument that the effect of protection was to lower prices. If this were really so, we should still be losers; for no one has ever pretended that the price could be lowered by an amount equal to the duty on foreign goods, which, of course, we lose when our own are consumed in their stead. These arguments of the protection-ple in the amounts paid to the protected interests.oly of the crime of buying and selling human flesh. ists imply great disinterestedness on the part of our manufacturers, who contend for the privilege of buying from us in the home market at the high est possible price, and of selling their goods to us at the cheapest possible rate! The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STANTON] Said this morning that he desired protection for protection sake. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. JONES] says, however, that all he wants is such incidental protection as may be secured by a revenue tariff. But what idea has my friend from Pennsylvania of a revenue tariff? Does he mean such a tax as will produce the highest amount of revenue? Is that what the gentleman means? Mr. JONES, of Pennsylvania, (interrupting.) What I meant to state, and did state at the time, was this, that I wanted a revenue tariff, that is, a tariff adjusted for revenue, that being its primary object; and in connection with that, and having that always in view, I would put the duties upon that class of articles-looking upon it as a tax-bill -which would impose the burden of taxes as nearly equal as possible upon the mass of con sumers. I would adjust the duty according to a revenue standard; but in so doing I never would lose sight of the consideration that we were imposing a tax on the masses of the people. I said that the article of iron is consumed in the main by railroad and steamship companies and other corporations, and that, in relieving them from the payment of duty, the burdens of the Government will fall on the poorer class-the class least able to bear them. This would be as unwise as it would be, in laying CUBAN ANNEXATION. SPEECH OF HON. J. R. GIDDINGS, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the annexation of Cuba; delivered in the Com- Mr. GIDDINGS. Mr. Chairman, I have risen Why, sir, during the recent campaign, a Whig Mr. MILLSON. The gentleman would im- missionary, formerly a member of this body, was pose such a duty as would raise revenue and secure sent from New York city to Ohio, to inform us incidental protection. Now I say, that the com- that unless the tariff were increased, the country bination of revenue with protection, is a moral and would be ruined; and here, sir, on the second day physical impossibility. A tariff to be protective, of the session, his Whig successor, elected with must be prohibitory to the extent it is protective. the aid of his vote and influence, moved a resoluA revenue tariff gives no protection, and a protection to reduce the tariff. Now, it is quite evident tive tariff gives no revenue. Of course, I speak of the respective operations of the revenue and protective features of a tariff. Both may be found in the same law, and in that way it may at once give protection and raise reve nue. But I say that so much of its operation as gives protection, raises no revenue; and so much as raises revenue, gives no protection. You cannot combine revenue with protection. A tariff must always be prohibitory to the extent that it is protective. I do not deny that under the operation of a particular rate of duty, some articles may be excluded from the country, while others may still find their way in, after paying the duty; but 1 say that every article that is introduced into the country, interferes with the home manufacture, and to that extent deprives it of protection. On the other hand, to the precise extent that the foreign competition is prevented, revenue is destroyed. If the tax imposed on foreign goods be too low to exclude any of them, no protection is given; and the only effect of the tax is to raise revenue. If such a tax is laid as excludes all foreign goods, then you raise no revenue, and the duty has no effect but to give protection. If you impose a tax that will equalize foreign and domestic prices, so that one half the quantity of goods necessary for our consumption shall be furnished by the home manufacturer, and the other half shall continue to come in from abroad, then to the extent that it excludes the moiety of foreign imports, it is protective, prohibitory, and gives no revenue; and to the extent that it admits the other half, and raises revenue upon them, it gives no protection. It gives no protection, because the goods thus admitted come into competition with those of the home manufacturers, and diminish their sales by the amount of the foreign supply. I think, sir, that duties ought to be imposed with exclusive reference to revenue. But it does not follow that that duty which will yield the largest amount of revenue, ought always to be adopted. that whether it be increased or diminished, the Its discussion at this time, is unseasonable and The discussion has become "flat, stale, and unprofitable." And whatever my feelings may be, I cannot disguise the fact, that the popular tendency in England, throughout Europe, and in this country, is toward free trade. Experience is the only test which can be applied to these theories. The truth of this remark is exemplified in the operation of the present tariff. At the time of its adoption, we were told that it would not produce revenue sufficient to carry on the Government. Yet although our expenditures were nearly doubled by the Mexican war, we have now more revenue than sufficient to meet all demands upon our Treasury. These facts should teach us to be less tenacious of our theories, and more willing to be guided by experience. We are all conscious that but one great interest Now, sir, with all kindness, I will say to those advocates for protection to northern labor, that while they make merchandise of the southern laborer, of his wife and children, it will be in vain for them to profess humane sympathy for the free and independent laborers of the North. While you profess an anxious solicitude for the pecuniary interest of the laborer in the cotton mill, and at the same time make merchandise of the bone and sinews, the blood and muscle of him who cultivates the raw material, the people will pronounce you hypocrites. I this morning read in one of our papers an account of a slave mother, having four children whom she tenderly loved. Her soul yearned for their happiness. But her master contracted to deliver them to a slave-dealer. She vainly implored him to desist from his purpose. He persisted; and as she saw her offspring about to be torn from her embrace, she felt unable to meet such separation, and in order to save her loved ones from the suffering and degradation to which your laws consigned them, she mercifully deprived them of life. A few days afterwards, she was herself consigned to the gallows, for this manifestation of her affection; and the whole family of five persons were placed beyond the further cruelty of your laws. Now, sir, while we continue in force laws which inflict such suffering upon one portion of our fellow-mortals, and at the same time profess an anxiety for the pecuniary interest of another portion, will not all candid men charge us with hypocricy and falsehood? Mr. JOHNSON, of Tenneseee, said, if he understood the gentleman from Ohio, he was in favor of removing the protection to slave labor by repealing the law which prohibits the importation of slaves. Mr. GIDDINGS. The gentleman is mistaken; it was the protection of the slave grower to which I referred. It is the law of Congress, which authorizes the domestic slave trade, that I condemn. That traffic is far more barbarous than the foreign slave trade which we very properly characterize as piracy, and punish with death. Dealing in human Aesh is, in a moral point of view, a naked, undisguised piracy; it is so regarded by all reflecting men; and those who traffic in human flesh, either here, in Africa, or elsewhere, and all who advise, aid, counsel, or encourage such traffic, are guilty, and deserve death upon the gallows. The manner in which we aid and encourage this crime is immaterial. If we lend that encouragement by passing laws to protect the slave-dealer, or by lending our influence to retain such laws in force, we are as guilty as he who actually buys and sells the victims of this traffic, and we, sir, deserve death as much as he does. I would not hang the ignorant sailor who goes to Africa and purchases men and women there, and spare the member of Congress who exerts his influence to continue the same crimes here. Had I the power to punish these crimes, I would inflict the same penalty upon every man who deals in human flesh, or who authorizes or encourages such traffic. I observed that the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. JONES] took occasion, while discussing the tariff, to say that the Democracy of his State were in favor of the fugitive law; but it is somewhat remarkable that the President, in his message, makes no mention of that law. It is said, that during the last three months more fugitives have found their way to Canada than ever previously emigrated to that province in the same space of time. They went singly, in pairs, in companies of five, of ten; and sometimes twenty or more traveled together. Scarcely a slave-catcher interposed to prevent this tide of emigration; and those who made attempts to stop them were unsuccessful. The emigrants were armed and ready for the combat. They laughed at your fugitive law, and ridiculed those who enacted and who advo 32D CONG.....2D SESS. cate its continuance. As the President is about to retire from office, he witnesses the contempt into which this, his favorite measure, has fallen, yet he fails in his last annual message to notice these facts, nor does he make even an effort to modify the popular odium which has pronounced those compromise measures infamous. He sees the country rapidly separating into two parties; the supporters of slavery and the advocates of liberty. He must be conscious that these parties will soon swallow up all other organizations. The free Democracy and the slave Democracy will soon characterize our political distinctions, and the Democratic principle of man's natural right to liberty will be vindicated and sustained; yet he remains silent on the subject. And here I wish to say to the friends of liberty that our cause is advancing rapidly, and with firmer and surer pace than at any former period. The old political organizations have lost their moral power. The election of the great western statesman, Thomas H. Benton, in opposition to both the Whig and Democratic parties, shows the tendency of men to think and vote agreeably to the dictates of their own judgment, and not according to caucus dictation, or party rule. He, sir, was unconnected with all parties. He was the exponent of his own views: the people approved his sentiments, and, setting party dictation at defiance, they elected him. Nor was the election of the distinguished philanthropist from New York, Gerritt Smith, less a triumph of independent political thought and action. These distinguished gentlemen were connected with no political parties; but each was elected upon his own merits. the Committee on Ways and Means, [Mr. Hous-who have gone before him, he will find hereafter Now, sir, I would say to them, that the Free Democracy is not altogether composed of boys and unfledged politicians; nor is it guided by men destitute of experience and forethought. We, sir, look not to the other parties for guidance: we do our own thinking, and our own voting. We have our own views upon this question as well as on all others. This correspondence is highly important. It Gentlemen of the Democratic party who have shows to the country and to the civilized world, spoken here, have alluded directly to this policy, that for thirty years the Executive has exerted our but have carefully withheld all expression of their national influence to maintain slavery in Cuba, in own views, or the views of their party, in reference order that the institution may be rendered more to it. I had hoped to hear from gentlemen the secure in the United Stutes. This policy stands designs of the incoming President. At least I out in bold relief; it pervades the whole corre- hoped to hear what they themselves think of this spondence, and was also incorporated into the in-policy. Are they, individually, in favor of it or structions of our Commissioners to the Congress against it? No one has presumed to avow his of Panama, although those instructions are not own thoughts. Now, I would say to those memembraced in the communication now before us. bers, you were sent here to represent the people. Franklin Pierce was elected to carry out and execute the laws which we enact-not to represent the voice of the people in enacting laws. God has given to you the powers of thought and reflection. He has given to you judgment and conscience. It is your duty to exercise those judgments and obey your own consciences-not to wait for General Pierce to tell you how to act and what to do, nor to obtain instructions on these subjects from the incoming President, or from the members of his Cabinet. If you do this, you are not representatives of the people, but of General Pierce, who will take care to represent himself. If you do this, you will not deserve the name of freemen. No, gentlemen, you and I were commissioned to avow the popular will of the nation; and God forbid that we should wait to receive instructions from any other human being. Both Whig and Democratic Administrations have adopted this policy; and although I have but little time to read extracts from this correspondence, I will give one from the letter of Mr. Webster, SecI have not time to speak of the election to this retary of State, marked "Private and Confidential,” body of the free Democratic members, and of to our Consul at Havana, dated January 14, 1843, Whig and Democratic members elected by aid of in which the author refers to reported intentions of the Free Democracy: nor are these elections, British abolitionists and the British Ministry to aid triumphant as they are, even an indication of the in the abolition of slavery and in the establishment extent of our progress. Our principles are cher- of an independent government in Cuba: he says: ished by hundreds of thousands of the other parties, "If this scheme should succeed, the influence of who have heretofore been unable to separate them-Britain in this quarter, it is remarked, will be unselves from their long-cherished political organiza- limited. With six hundred thousand blacks in tions, but who now say they have acted with them | Cuba, and eight hundred thousand in her West for the last time. 'India islands, she will (it is said) strike a blow at 'the existence of slavery in the United States. "These, sir, are the words of a man who opposed all expression, by this Government, of sympathy with oppressed Hungary; who was so strongly opposed to all intervention with the affairs of other Governments in favor of liberty. Again, sir, we have enlisted the literati of our country on the side of truth, liberty, and justice. To my fair country women I would say, that a lady with her pen, has done more for the cause of freedom, during the last year, than any savant, statesman, or politician of our land. That inimitable work, "Uncle Tom's Cabin," is now carrying truth to the minds of millions, who, to this time, have been deaf to the cries of the downtrodden. It is arousing the sensibilities of this country and of Europe. It goes where no other anti-slavery work ever found its way; and quietly carries conviction to the hearts of its readers. It has been dramatized, and both in this country and in Europe, the play-going public listen with intense interest to the wrongs, the revolting crimes of slavery. Thus, the theater, that "school of vice," has been subsidized to the promulgation of truth, and the hearts of thousands have been reached, who were approachable in no other way. The clergy of the North are awakening to duty, to the calls of humanity. No longer are we called to listen to "lower law" sermons, nor are the feelings of our Christian communities shocked by reading discourses from Doctors of Divinity, intended to sanctify and encourage the most transcendent crimes which ever disgraced mankind. Churches and ecclesiastical bodies, are beginning to move in behalf of truth, of christian principles. They are purifying themselves from those who deal in God's image; they are withdrawing church fellowship from those pirates who deserve the gallows and halter, rather than a seat at the communion table of Christian churches. I have glanced at these facts in answer to those who have spoken before me, and for the encouragement of our friends, in order to assure them, that while Whigs and Democrats in this Hall are discussing the propriety of protecting" cotton cloth" and "cut nails," the advocates of freedom have not forgotten the duty of protecting the rights of our common humanity. But, Mr. Chairman, my principal object in rising, was to call the attention of this body and of the country, to the first in the series of resolutions presented by the honorable chairman of | || We, sir, hold our own institutions by the right ment to perpetuate his own disgrace. They, sir, But, as I have remarked, no Democrat has as yet intimated the policy of the incoming Administration in regard to Cuba; and as the country is desirous of understanding what that policy will be, I will volunteer to speak for the President elect. [Laughter.] As my colleague in the Senate yesterday remarked, "I am a Democrat, by the grace of God, free and independent;" and as I have no doubt as to the policy of General Pierce, I will give my opinion as to his course on this subject. If he be the man-the statesman-that I take him to be, he will neither say nor do anything about it. He will leave it in silence. He will not follow the example of one of his predecessors, who, in his inaugural address, declared our title to the whole of Oregon to be clear and unquestionable, and when the British lion began to growl and show his teeth, our President backed out of his position, and surrendered one half to British rule. No; General Pierce will not be likely to follow such an example. He will look thoroughly into this subject before he commits himself in regard to it. It is certain that former Administrations and a portion of the people of the United States have long coveted Cuba, and would gladly now wrest it from the control of Spain, if they could do so with safety. The objects for which they would do it, 1 have already adverted to. But an omniscient, allwise Providence has thrown around the consummation of that great national crime such difficulties, and embarrassments, and positive dangers, that in my opinion it will never be perpetrated. The first and only mode in which we can hope to obtain Cuba is by peaceful, quiet purchase. Suppose the Spanish Crown should consent to take $100,000,000, as proposed by Mr. Buchanan, for the transfer of Cuba to this Government, and our President should stipulate to pay it; I would yet say to the Spanish Cortes, and to British and to French statesmen, that not one dollar of that amount can go to the possession of Spain until this House shall make the appropriation. I wish them to understand that the people here are the |