32D CONG.... 1ST SESS.

did not ask for a change of the tariff, but only a modification of the mode of appraisement, without changing the ad valorem or revenue standard. I will come to that though in good time, and satisfy the gentleman that I would do it again, and often, upon the position I have taken and now occupy. I will read the gentleman the substance of a resolution presently, drawn by my own hand in 1846, endorsing the principles of the tariff of 1846, with a proviso that we would favor such a modification of its details from time to time as the exigencies of the country might require consistently with those principles; I offered a resolution at the last session of Congress precisely consistent with that, and I am ready to offer one at any future time, when needed, because I do not believe in the permanency of a revenue standard. Sometimes it is too high, sometimes too low.

I have already stated that I am opposed to opening the question at this time, but I shall vote for the amendment of the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JONES,] because ever since the passage of the tariff of 1846, I have always stood by the ad valorem system. I shall vote, however, against the resolution as amended, because I am opposed to the opening of the question at this time. The tariff of 1846 was passed in the month of July of that year. There was a Democratic convention held in the county of Berks, which is in my district, in the month of September, 1846. At that convention, I drew a resolution which was unanimously adopted by that convention, and I wish to read that resolution in order to show the position we then took, and also to show that all our acts, from that day to this, have been perfectly consistent with that position; and I wish to read it more especially because we are not understood upon this question. I say that the position of the Pennsylvania Democracy on the tariff question is not only founded upon sound Democratic principles, but that it is perfectly consistent with the Baltimore platform and with Democratic doctrine generally, it is the interest perhaps of some to misunderstand us, but it is my duty, to the extent of my ability, to see that we are not misunderstood any longer by the country. The resolution passed in September, 1846, was in substance as follows:

Resolved, That we approve of the principles of the tariff of 1846, with such modifications of its details, consistent with those principles, from time to time, as the exigencies of the country may require.

Now, sir, what is meant by the principles of the tariff of 1846? What I understand to be the principles of the tariff of 1846 are, first, that it shall have a revenue standard, and shall be adjusted with revenue for its primary object. This is one of its principles, and I, for one, have never been willing, and have never proposed, to depart from that standard since its adoption. Another principle of the tariff of 1846 is, that the duties shall be ad valorem. Now, sir, from the day when that tariff passed, in 1846, to this day, I have never seen a resolution passed by the democracy of the State of Pennsylvania, which I have the honor in part to represent, proposing to change either its ad valorem or revenue features. If that be our true position, then I wish to know wherein we are inconsistent? Starting upon this ground and upon these principles, the only open point with us was this: that we would ask for a modification of the details of the tariff whenever the ex

igencies of the country required it. And in answer to the honorable gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CARTTER] I say, that four months ago there was just such an exigency, in our judgment, and I moved for the modification, not of its principles, but of one of its details.. Now there is no such exigency, and I am opposed to all change of its details at this time. That is my position; and it is perfectly plain, at least to me. On making this motion, you will remember, sir, that it was then ruled out of order, and consequently I had no opportunity of being heard. If I had, I should then have taken the same ground I take now. But I was not heard, and, except to the Committee of Ways and Means, of which I have the honor to be a member, my position was not understood. An opportunity is now afforded me to place the Democratic party of my own district, as I understand it, in its true position on this question of the tariff-the position which it has always occupied

The Tariff-Mr. Jones, of Pennsylvania.

ever since the passage of the act of 1846; and I proceed to do it.

The exigency that arose at the last session of Congress was just this: the tariff is ad valorem and the price of iron had fallen so low that thirty per cent. was actually far below the revenue standard. I could prove to the satisfaction of any man, that my proposition, made at the last session of Congress, would have increased our revenue considerably. If it could have been shown that my proposition was going to check the revenue, or to go beyond the revenue standard, I would have abandoned it at once. I tell the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] that if he is apprehensive of the accumulation of a surplus revenue, let the tariff remain where it is upon iron at this day; and so far as that article is concerned he will soon find his fears to be groundless. If you look for revenue from the present tariff on iron, it will be like calling spirits from the vasty deep; it will not come. Under the ad valorem system, and the present high prices of iron, if these prices continue the duty will soon reach a prohibitory point, and the iron interests of the country do not want that. All they have ever asked of this Government is to give them a fixed system; stability is all they need now, and they will get along very well. Some of them, it is true, are clamorous for protection; but a majority of them have learned that stability, on almost any tolerable system, is best for their interests, and that too high prices are just as ruinous as too low. The proposition which I submitted four months ago to this House, was based upon the resolution which I have read, that the tariff ought to be modified, from time to time, according to the exigencies of the country, that is, the exigencies of revenue. It was then expedient to offer such a resolution; but now it would be inexpedient, because, at that time the duty was far below the revenue standard, and now it is above it.

This, then, Mr. Chairman, is the position of the Democracy of my district. The iron interests, irrespective of party, are gradually making up their minds to abandon all hope of direct protection. They are coming to the conclusion, especially since the last election, that the Democratic party is the party of the country; that its policy and principles will rule this country; and that, although they may not get what they want according to their own views, they can get something like stability; and a faithful adherence by the Democratic party to their own system will, in my opinion, soon secure their acquiescence. The iron interest is fast coming to the conclusion now, that if it were possible for the Whig party to carry a protective tariff in this Congress, or in any subsequent one, it would not stand. It would be repealed, perhaps, the very next Congress. There is no stability in it. It is founded on the supposition that we must have special legislation for the interests of one State. And who could expect that the legislation of this nation should be adapted to the peculiar interests of one State, at the expense of others? If the Whig party could control this General Government, or had power to adopt this policy and to carry it out, it might answer very well for them. But this is not likely to happen; for the Democratic party can never so far depart from their general principles, as to give protection to the peculiar interests of a single State which may be at war with the interests of other States. Our manufacturing interests must look, therefore, to the policy and principles of the Democratic party, and take their chances on the platform of equality with the other great interests of the

country.

In this view their only chance is incidental protection. A good deal has been said about this incidental protection; but it seems to me that so far as the tariff question is concerned, the distinction between incidental and accidental is scarcely perceptible, especially if the fluctuations of trade are called accidents. If I understand incidental protection, it means a contingency dependent upon another contingency; that is to say, that an ad valorem duty tariff, rising and falling, protects the article incidentally to that extent. Revenue is the object, protection the incident.

I will state precisely the ground occupied by the Democratic party of my district on this subject of incidental protection. We take the ground of the revenue standard. Put your revenue standard

HO. OF REPS.

upon our domestic manufactures at the highest revenue point, and the only incidental protection that is asked is just that accidental protection which may result from that standard. That is what we mean by incidental protection, and that is the only protection for which the Democratic party of my district now contends.

Mr. Chairman, representing in part the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I say that upon this platform, in my opinion, her Democracy now stand, and, I will add, upon which the iron and manufacturing interests of my State will be compelled to stand. I believe, also, that in order to secure stability, and to give us the greatest amount of incidental protection, consistent with the principles of the Democratic party, the country is disposed to give this system their support, or at least acquiescence. This position, sir, is ad valorem against specific duties; a tariff for revenue against protection. No man pretends to doubt, I presume, now that a tariff strictly construed is a tax. It is nothing but indirect taxation, or taxation upon consumption. I was very glad to hear my honorable friend from South Carolina [Mr. WOODWARD] state the other day that he regarded a horizontal tariff as a perfect farce.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like any gentleman who undertakes to discuss this tariff question, to tell me how he can adjust a tariff for revenue on a horizontal scale. The gentleman [Mr. WOODWARD] showed most conclusively, in his speech, that if you adopt a tariff for revenue, you must place the duty on some articles at five, some at ten, and some at twenty or thirty per cent. A horizontal tariff would produce no revenue on some articles.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have further to remark on this subject, that, in my opinion, such a tariff as I have described must end in free trade. I want to be distinctly understood upon this question, because I was pleased the other day to hear the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. WOODWARD] define his idea, or give his definition of free trade. If I understood him correctly, he said the day would come when the imports into this country would not bear any duty at all, because our own manufacturing productions would be furnished so cheap that they could come into competition with any produced in the world. Now, I believe this position to be correct, and I give it my cordial approval. In that view, I am a prospective free-trader, and a progressive one, too, in that ratio. I am willing to be a free-trader out and out, as soon as we arrive at that point. I firmly believe it will be reached. And I will say further, that I not only concur with him in this view, but the Democratic party of Pennsylvania also concur in these views. To illustrate this, I will show, before I conclude, that there has been progress in Pennsylvania on this question, and in that direction. They believe that this matter will end in free trade. They are willing to be free-traders, when we shall have arrived at that point when the imports into this country will not bear duties.

So far, then, we agree upon principle. Where, then, is the difference between what are miscalled tariff Democrats and free-traders? It is a distinction without a difference. Our position is identical, if only properly understood. We agree upon a tariff for revenue, upon the ad valorem principle, and we agree upon the question of progressive free-tradeism. Where, then, is the difference? It does not exist. A tariff Democrat is a misnomer.

The next question is as to the adjustment or discrimination of this tariff. The Baltimore platform has laid down a principle for the Democratic party, that no one interest shall be fostered at the expense of another. I subscribe to that principle. I shall ask for discrimination in any tariff, but I shall not ask for a discrimination in favor of any article beyond the revenue standard, nor shall I ask it at the expense of any other interest. That is what I understand by the Baltimore platform. You must not protect, in any way, or foster, any one interest of the country at the expense of another.

The question now under discussion is, how shall you adjust the duties to reduce the revenue and avoid a surplus? I agree with some of the gentlemen who have preceded me upon this subject, and the very moment there is an accumulation of surplus revenue in the Treasury, and there is no mode

32D CONG....1st Sess.

of disposing of it in a proper and legitimate manner except by a reduction of the duties, I will go any length to secure that reduction. That is, as I understand it, all that is asked. And while I am opposed at this present time to any reduction of the tariff of 1846, as being fraught, in my opinion, with nothing but mischief, I will say now, that in one year from this time, after we have all the light, all the information, and all the statistics we want -when we have had time to deliberate upon the proper mode of reduction-I will most cheerfully concur in such a reduction.

I have no hesitation now in expressing my own views to the House of the proper mode of reduction. In the first place, the principle I set out with is, that we ought to have an economical administration of the General Government. I subscribe to that principle, and, as a member of the Committee of Ways and Means, I will vote for a reduction in the next fiscal year of $6,000,000 of the current expenditure. The proposition of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] is to reduce the income or revenue of the Government, with a view of meeting only the expenses of the Government, economically administered. I concur in this, and, as I have just remarked, I will vote in the Committee of Ways and Means, and in the House, to reduce the annual appropriation for defraying the current expenses of the Government for the next fiscal year $6,000,000, which will reduce the whole amount to $40,000,000. 1 am willing to meet that contingency now by applying this surplus revenue to the cancellation of the national debt, so far as it can be done. This will dispose of a portion of it. In the next place, if, after this, it be found that we have a surplus in the Treasury, and no employment for it, I will agree to a reduction of the tariff of 1846, first by an extension of the free list. In order to understand this, I suppose myself to be two years hence -for that will be soon enough-with the national debt paid as far as it can be done with the surplus revenue now on hand, and such as shall accrue in the mean time, and the administration of the Government of the United States reduced to the most economical point practicable, and that we are starting out now to reduce the revenue of the Government to meet only the actual wants of such economical administration. I repeat, then, that I would first extend the free list; I would, in the next place, levy a duty upon all articles which we manufacture at the revenue, the highest revenue standard. That would make a beginning. 1 would place a duty on these articles at the highest revenue standard-no higher and no lower. That is Democratic doctrine; that is a revenue tariff— and what next? Why, I would then make all articles of foreign growth or foreign production, which are consumed by the masses, (excluding a certain class of luxuries,) and which we do not manufacture in this country, free of all duty, or, if that would take off too much revenue, I would reduce it down to the lowest compatible point. I believe I agree with the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] in regard to extending this free list, or in reducing the duties on this species of productions just to the point required to pay the expenses of the Government, economically administered.

These are precisely my views upon this subject, and I believe they embody the views of most of my Democratic constituents, or those of the Democratic party generally in Pennsylvania. That is the doctrine of the Baltimore platform, and it is the principle embodied in the tariff of 1846. There is where the Democrats of Pennsylvania place themselves; and we are willing to stand upon those principles with you. We only ask that when a modification of the tariff of 1846 shall come, that you will place the highest revenue standard upon such articles as are manufactured in this country.

I agree with the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. WOODWARD] in another pointthat no tariff can be made a permanent one. There is no such thing as making it permanent, because the circumstances or causes which regulate it are subject to the laws of trade, and it is not in the power of human legislation to make it permanent unless that legislation can be made to regulate also the laws of supply and demand. Otherwise you

The Tariff-Mr. Jones, of Pennsylvania.

cannot make a tariff by any invention of man which can remain permanent. It must change according to the circumstances which may arise, and all you can do is to establish settled principles by which to guide yourselves in running on with this progressive tendency to free trade, and I do solemnly believe that this progression will not only be the highest indication of the success of our manufactures, but of the greatness, the growth, and glory of our country.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to say, in connection with this subject, that the point of difference between myself and some gentlemen upon this floor is, that I make a discrimination in favor of manufactures; so I do, but I am in favor of our manufactures against that which we do not produce, and which is not indigenous to our soil. Is not this Democratic? I would like any gentleman to tell me where I shall go to find a better Democratic doctrine. Does it make any difference, taking the tariff as a tax, whether a man pays two dollars duty on one article, and nothing on another, or pays one dollar on each? None at all, provided both articles enter alike into general consumption. Does it make any difference whether you lay the burdens of the Government on one article of general consumption, or on two? I can see none. If that position be correct, then it makes no difference whether your tariff is laid upon articles of manufacture or not, provided it is laid upon articles of general consumption entering into all classes of society.

If articles of manufacture are articles of general consumption, and if it is your object by this indirect mode of taxation to distribute the burdens of the Government equally upon all, by laying these duties upon manufactures, you will reach that point as nearly as is practicable. Call it, then, a tax, and that tax it laid upon manufactures at the revenue standard; then make a free list, and what is the effect? Why, sir, do not you reap the benefits on every article that is introduced into the country free-every article, I mean, of raw material? Every such article that is placed upon the free list is manufactured in this country, and enters into the general consumption of the whole country; and is not this fair? Take, for instance, the articles of tea and coffee; they are not produced in this country, but they come here free of duty; they are diffused all over the country, and every man partakes of the benefit of them as free articles. Is not that equal? Is it not just? Why, sir, the only possible discrimination it can make is in favor of the poor and the laboring classes, against the rich and those who are best able to bear the burdens of taxation. But I am talking of this principle as consistent with the principles of the Democratic party —a discrimination in favor of a free list! Why, sir, I would be willing to meet any Democrat upon that argument, because it is as clear to my mind as anything can be. I ask any Democrat to meet me with the Baltimore platform before him, or any position the Democratic party of the country has ever taken, and show me that there is any injustice or inequality, or any taxing of one interest of the country at the expense of another by extending your free list, and placing a tariff at the revenue standard upon your manufactured articles.

Now, sir, taking that position, what next? Why, Mr. Chairman, we shall then begin to reduce the revenue standard, and then according to the position of the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. WOODWARD,] we shall, in a period of time, which he perhaps sees in the distance, arrive at free trade.

Mr. CLINGMAN. I wish to see if I understand the gentleman's proposition. His principle, if I apprehend him aright, is, that the duty shall be imposed upon those articles which are manufactured in this country. For example, to illustrate my views, salt is an article of general consumption. If you impose a duty upon salt, it appears that the salt makers of this country would pay no part of that duty, because they would sell and not buy. I would like to know of the gentleman whether, if you impose duties upon artiticles manufactured in this country alone, you will not thereby relieve the manufacturer from all share in supporting the Government; and I should like to know how he would work out his policy in practice?

Ho. OF REPS.

Mr. JONES. I did not in this discussion propose to go into all the details of all possible contingencies that might arise out of a modification of the tariff. I have no objection-although I do not understand the gentleman's proposition exactlyto repeat my views in general terms.

Mr. CLINGMAN, (interrupting.) If the gentleman will allow me a single word further. I have no doubt, if there were some one article which everybody consumed, it would make no difference if you put the tax upon that article. But I wish to direct the gentleman's attention to the difficulty in practice in carrying out any such general principle as he lays down. For example, you cannot take any one article, manufactured in this country, that everybody will buy alike. Here will be the difficulty of carrying out his principles. I would like to have the gentleman go a little into detail, and show me how the principle is to be carried out. I can well understand how, if you tax everything, everybody will contribute; but if you select an article manufactured in this country alone, and impose a duty upon that, then, of course, the manufacturers, as they do not buy that article, pay no part of the duty; but upon the other hand they get a benefit in the shape of protection, and a bounty in the high prices. It seems to me that they have no right to ask us to relieve them altogether.

Mr. JONES, (resuming.) I thought I stated distinctly, in my proposition, that I expected nothing perfect in this world-at least, I never found it-and if I intimated that any tariff could be adjusted with equal justice to every man in the Union, I certainly meant no such thing. All that we can do in the adjustment of the details of the tariff is, to get as near the point as we possibly can. That some men will not be equally taxed with others is all very true. In adjusting the tariff upon consumption, he who consumes the most pays the most taxes. That is all I mean to say now, without going into details, because I am not prepared to argue that question at this time, and I may upon another occasion go into the details of it. All that we can do is to aim as near that point as we possibly can, and if the gentleman will suggest something better, I will be willing to join him. I may say, however, that he is mistaken in saying manufacturers are not consumers; but I concede it is not so much a question of principle, as it is one of expediency, consistent with principle.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe I have gone over the points, and I do not wish to occupy any time in repeating them. I have stated them, as a matter of course as general principles-and I can do nothing else in one hour. When I am called upon to define the position of my party at home, in my district, upon the prospective reduction of the whole tariff system, and occupying one half or two thirds of the time in defending the positions I take, it is utterly impossible for me to go into any argument in exposition of my views upon the details of this tariff. Therefore I pass that by, upon general principles; but I repeat, that when the time comes, we stand ready to adjust the duties of this tariff, upon the revenue standard, on all that we manufacture or produce, and consequently to extend the free list, and reduce the duties upon those articles which we do not produce, to such a point as may come within the requisites of the Government, to meet its economical expenditures; and if that produces a surplus revenue, then we go one step further, and reduce below the revenue point, and so continue from time to time, progressively, until we are brought to entire free trade. That was the position I was endeavoring to explain, so as to be understood.

Now, I have something to say in relation to the position which the State of Pennsylvania has occupied in relation to those views, ever since the tariff of 1846 was passed. I have already stated that the resolution I read was adopted in 1846.

However, before I touch upon that subject, I wish to say one word in relation to the effect this course will produce upon the country. I have already stated that the effect of this will be, in the first instance, to throw the burden upon the richer classes, and to relieve the poorer and laboring classes. But there is one class it will not relieve, and that is the corporations and monopolies of the country, and consequently I cannot satisfy those

honorable gentlemen who are in favor of exempt- Only convince us that we are wrong, and Penning railroad iron, and making it free of duty-forsylvania will follow the right. 1 am at issue with them-or if they cannot agree How is it on the question of the distribution of with me, and go upon principle, convince me I am the proceeds of the public lands? Precisely the wrong, and I will abandon the point. I say the De- same. Pennsylvania is sound upon that question mocratic party is against such a course. You cannot -as sound as any portion of the Democracy of discriminate by making railroad iron free of duty, the country. How is she upon the execution of unless you lay down the principle that it is proper the fugitive slave law? When the country was and right to discriminate in favor of corporations supposed to be in danger, did not Pennsylvania and monopolies, because that is the tendency of it. come to the rescue, and sustain, not the South, but I have been astonished to see that gentlemen, who the Constitution? She was called, at the North, have been talking about the principles of this tariff, a dough-face. and apprehending that I was departing from them, are in favor of making railroad iron free. Now, I want those gentlemen to tell me how they are to resist this issue. If you are in favor of repealing the duties on railroad iron, then you are in favor of discriminating favorably to corporations and monopolies. If, upon the other hand, you argue with me that such a course is for the benefit of the whole country, then you are in favor of aiding internal improvements at the expense of Government. It will not do to say that in taking off thirty per cent. in favor of railroad iron indirectly you are not thereby giving thirty per cent. to corporations out of the funds of the Government. There is no distinction at all that I can see, consequently in voting to discriminate in favor of railroad iron, and making it duty free, the effect of it irresistibly is, that you either discriminate in favor of corporations, or you are in favor of taking the money out of the Treasury for disbursing it in favor of internal improvements. I am opposed to both.

Mr. Chairman, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or at least the Democratic party in it, have always advanced on sound principles. We have often been told that we are unsound. I say that we have always shown ourselves willing to advance, and I can prove it by the records. How is it on the bank question? Who created that bank? Was it the Democratic party of Pennsylvania? Sir, it was the creature of this General Government. If it be unconstitutional to have a national bank, you are responsible for it, and not the State of Pennsylvania. Not only that, sir, but it has been our misfortune to have your very erroneous legislation located in our State. When you created a national bank of thirty-six millions of dollars, you planted it in my State, and then turned round and found fault with us because we had it there. Why, sir, it was your error, and not ours; all the political heresies that have ever got into the State of Pennsylvania, have come from this General Government; and that State learned all her heresies in your school. Now, on the bank question we have advanced, and come to occupy a true position upon it. We agree that a national bank is an obsolete idea. Is not that advancing upon sound principles? And I hope, sir, to see that very principle, some day or other, impregnating the Supreme Bench of this Union. I hope to see the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States reversed by the Supreme Court; and I also wish to see the case of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth, reversed too; then I shall be satisfied with the opinions and position of the Supreme Court of the United States.

That is the doctrine of the Supreme Court, and not of Pennsylvania. The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Taney, according to my judgment, is more in accordance with their public

views.

How is it with the question of the constitutional treasury? Is not Pennsylvania sound upon that question? If she be sound, does it not prove that she advances upon principle, and is always right? All that she asks in reference to these great questions of the country is to allow time to deliberate. She does not want to be put under a high pressure all the time by hasty changes, even where error exists and has taken deep root.

I respect the opinions of those gentlemen of the South who differ with me upon the manner of modifying the tariff. We meet you upon the tariff of '46 now, and beg you not to leave its principles until you at least succeed in convincing us it is wrong. When you do that, we will go with you. Allow us to take counsel with you upon these principles, and when the proper time comes, we will always advance upon principle.

She has been called a follower of southern doctrines. Sir, she recognizes the doctrine of No North, no South; but the Constitution and the Union; the Constitution just as our fathers made it, enforced and interpreted by the principles of strict construction. She has always loved and admired southern constitutional doctrines; not because they are southern, but because in general they are sound in her judgment; but she has, never lacked the nerve to forbear to follow when she believed them to be wrong.

I well remember when no man within the limits of this broad Union, occupied a larger share of her affections than the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, now gone to his grave. And yet, when he took a position in 1832 which she regarded as dangerous and unwise, she ceased to follow him on that question, although she never ceased to honor, to love, and to admire him.

It is upon the Constitution that she desires to stand, recognizing no higher law in the administration of the Government.

I cannot speak for the whole State, which I have the honor in part only to represent, except so far as my own opinions go of her position; but I think I understand her pretty well, and I can speak with confident assurance, at least for my own district, when I say that they repudiate the doctrine of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as that other famous decision, in which a United States Bank is declared to be constitutional, or rather perfectly consistent with the spirit of that instrument-falling within the powers not granted expressly, but which in that case were held to be necessary for carrying out those that expressly were granted

The tone of public sentiment in Pennsylvania, in my opinion, is against both of these decisions. They hold them to be wrong, and will hail the day with pleasure when the Supreme Court shall deem it expedient to reverse them; professionally, as a member of that court, I respect the decisions; as a representative, desirous of faithfully expressing the sentiments of my constituents, which, in this particular, are in consonance with my own judgment, I repudiate them as unsound and untenable. It was precisely, then, upon these principles, that in 1851 the Democratic party of Pennsylvania planted itself upon the doctrine that the fugitive slave law should be faithfully executed in Pennsylvania, and that her act of Assembly, refusing our jails to the General Goyernment, should be repealed, because such a position was absolutely required at that crisis from a party which professed to respect the compromises of the Constitution, and also professed to have nerve enough to say and do before the world what it believed to be right. It was in my own district (Berks) that the convention met and adopted this platform, nominating on it the present amiable and distinguished Executive of the State, William Bigler. Eight thousand majority crowned their success, and settled the question, I trust, forever.

I do not, Mr. Chairman, mention these things in a vain spirit of boasting. Other States were just as true; but I deem it due to the State which I in part represent, to refer to it in support of my argument that Pennsylvania is not stationary, as she is most unjustly represented to be, but has always been true to the Constitution, and is always progressive upon sound principles.

Now, sir, apply this rule to her action on the tariff. The tariff of 1842 was not understood by Pennsylvania herself when Mr. Walker proposed to establish the tariff of 1846. It was working well at that time; and although the Democratic party never endorsed its principles and details, it was averse to change-more from motives of fear of the consequences that might ensue than from

HO. OF REPS.

an approval of its principles. In 1844 the honorable Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, offered to Pennsylvania forty per cent. on iron; she declined it, however, because she feared the change might not work well; she was not then prepared for it. In 1846 a bill was passed establishing ad valorems, and putting the duties on iron at thirty per cent. This was passed without the vote of Pennsylvania, excepting the vote of the Hon. David Wilmot, for precisely the same reasons.

I now again refer to the resolution adopted by the Democratic convention of Berks county, in September, 1846, to show you that, in principle, she was right then, and only wanted time to carry it out. Now, sir, observe her progress: she was silent on the subject, asking no modification for four years. Towards the close of the first session of this Congress, I offered an amendment not to change a single principle of the act; but finding that in consequence of the very cheap rates of iron that the duties had fallen far below the revenue standard, my object was to change the mode of appraisement so as to bring it up to that standard. Could I have obtained a hearing, I would then have stated just what I state to-day, that Pennsylvania will stand by the tariff of 1846, in principle-preserving ad valorems with the revenue standard; but on our own manufactures we ask you to keep the duties up to the revenue standard-not to go beyond it, nor fall behind it. If this produces a surplus revenue, pay off the national debt. If a surplus still remains, extend your free list on articles not produced or manufactured here; and in doing so confine it to articles of general consumption by the masses, (omitting luxuries as falling within the exception to this rule.) If this fails, then reduce below the revenue standard on your manufactures, until, in the process of time, you reach absolute free trade-if you prefer it-and by this gradual, progressive reduction, you will find, when the time comes, your manufacturer will be able to bid defiance to the world; and all this can be secured in the adjustment of a revenue ad valorem tariff.

I should have stated these facts at the last session could I have had a hearing. My views were just the same then as now; accordingly, as I have already answered the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CARTTER,] I moved to modify then, because the duty had fallen far below the revenue standard. Now, sir, I am opposed to modification at this session, because although the duty is now too high, I have no faith in its staying there. In six months it may be down again; but if it continues up, I would most certainly favor reduction until you come down to the revenue standard. My position then is, that an ad valorem tariff fluctuating with the trade of the country cannot be permanent; and in order to make it effective, you must change from time to time and follow the fluctuating standard up or down the scale, just as the laws of supply and demand may please to send it.

have said that Pennsylvania progresses on all these questions on sound principles. In 1844, she refused McKay's bill; in 1851, she came here and offered to take it: it was refused; in 1852, she asked a modification of the tariff of 1846 merely to secure the revenue standard. Now she accepts it just as it is. Next year if it be too high, and a surplus accumulates, she will go with you to reduce it, and upon the principles I have laid down, she will go with you till it ends in free trade, if the country so wills it. All she asks is that you will only move cautiously, and gradually give stability to your acts as you advance, and she will go with you to the end. I felt it to be my duty, to the extent of my humble ability, at the earliest opportunity, to try and place her thus fairly before the country. I do not arrogate to myself the right to speak for her by authority. I am but one of her Representatives; and when I have assumed to speak for the State, I wish to be understood as only speaking by authority for my district. All I say of the State is but the result of careful observation and well-settled opinions. I speak only for the Democratic party also, and such interests as I believe concur with it. My colleagues may differ from me on many or all of my positions, and if so their opinions are entitled to as favorable a hearing as mine are.

32D CONG.....1ST SESS.

where would kill the poor creatures with despair. Take away these bidders for labor, and wages would go down and assume the European standard. Here the capitalist goes in search of labor; there labor seeks the capitalist. There employment is the commodity in demand, and is procured by the lowest bidder; here the employee, and is procured by the highest bidder. There the capitalist dictates to the laborer; here the laborer to the capitalist, who asks protection from him by demanding a contribution from the rest of the community. He artfully puts it on the ground that you are protecting labor. Can it be denied that the thing protected is the article produced, or the bale of goods owned by the capitalist, which he sells without paying a tax, while the foreign owner of a bale just like it has to pay a third of its value for the privilege of selling? But it will be replied, that the bale is the product of labor, and if you protect that, you protect the laborer.

The capitalist when he goes into the market for labor gets it as cheap as he can, and I have shown through what agencies the price is regulated and kept up. But for argument sake, let it be admitted that the laborer is protected to the extent of his agency in producing the bale. What proportion of it did he make, and what the machine owned by the capitalist? In that proportion, whatever it may be, is the premium shared between them. I leave to others better acquainted with the subject to determine the proportions of each. But my own opinion is, for every dollar pocketed by the capitalist about one cent goes into that of the laborer, which is paid away the first time he buys a coat. Sir, the machine and its owner is alone protected. You may as well tell me that the poor of Louisiana are protected by the duty on sugar. The labor which makes it is owned by the capitalists as are the machines of the North. They alone receive the premium. The laborer pays it. The wealthiest class of the North is the protected capitalist. The wealthiest at the South is the protected sugar planter. In each of these classes you find the millionaires of the country. It is idle to tell me that duties were taken off tea and coffee for the sake of the poor. Was ever a cup of either drank without sugar? No, sir; the reason is that there were no wealthy producers of these articles to combine with others to grind, not to protect the laborer.

I have heard it contended that if duties be light, foreigners will combine to overstock the market, and crush home manufacturers, and then demand their own prices. Men are alike governed by their interest all over the world. They will as soon combine at home as abroad. It is certainly more easy and practicable. Can the manufacturers of England, France, Germany, Belgium, and other countries more readily combine than those of Lowell? Is it more probable that the world will combine against us, than a corner to which the trade is secured? The competition of all nations is our best security against combinations.

I was very glad to hear, Mr. Chairman, that my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. JONES] had taken the liberal ground he did on protection; the only protection he wants, is that incidental protection which the highest revenue duties could give him. That was the ground assumed by Mr. Polk in his first message after his election, one which had never been officially taken before, and which was supported by nearly the whole Democratic party. But the gentleman from Pennsylvania must remember, that eight years have expired since that time, and the progress we have made since then in sound principles and knowledge of the laws of trade, has been very rapid.

I was pleased when the Democratic party took the ground, that they would be content with such incidental protection as the highest tariff of revenue would give, because I consider that one step towards a more liberal policy.

What does it amount to practically? If we desired to raise a million of dollars upon shoes, supposing that four millions were annually imported, a duty of twenty-five cents would raise it; a higher duty, say of fifty cents, would also do it; and at the same time incidentally encourage the home article, by excluding two millions of the foreign. The fifty cent tax is the highest revenue duty, but still it is protective, for while the same amount is paid into the Treasury upon the two millions of

The Tariff-Mr. Meade.

shoes, you are yet paying an equal tax upon the two millions made at home,-the one tax goes into the Treasury, and the other into the pockets of the manufacturers.

It is argued that the encouragement of our manufactures at home, lessens the supply of the productions of the earth, which would be overstocked in case we did not divert labor from the soil. When that time comes, the products of the earth will fall in value to that point which will itself suggest to capitalists other investments. But I never expect to see the day when the earth shall be beaten by any competitor. It has never been yet. A laborer can make more by plowing it, than in any other business.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with pleasure, until I discovered his object, to the remarks of the honorable gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] the other day. He seemed to desire to reduce the revenue, and diminish the surplus, by taking off duties. The object of his first resolution, as explained by himself, soon became apparent. In his list of articles to be made duty free, there is not one, I believe, which is manufactured here, and by making them free, we impose the necessity of keeping up the duties on all others.

His free list consists of such things as we must import, and many of them entering into the composition of the manufactured article at home. Now, I think I have shown clearly, that if we were to admit the raw materials free of duty, it would be an indirect protection to the manufacturer, and a tax on the consumer.

But the gentleman desires to reduce the revenue, and to prevent its accumulation in future. He anticipates great inconvenience in the country from hoarding up the specie.

Mr. CLEVELAND. If the gentleman will allow me to interrupt him, I desire to know by what process of reasoning he will prove that, by admitting railroad iron duty free, railroad companies would transport cheaper, and at the same time the manufacturers, under similar circumstances, would not sell cheaper?

Mr. MEADE. If the gentleman will read my speech when it is printed, he will find that I have explained that matter fully. I cannot go over the same discussion; it would consume too much time. The gentleman can satisfy himself, if he will do me the honor to read my speech.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if the country was in want of a specie circulation, the argument of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] would hold good; but the money hoarded in the Treasury is only a portion of the surplus product of the country. It occupies precisely the same relation to commerce as so much corn in a time of plenty. The gold of California is an article of merchandise; and so long as the currency of the country is sufficient for the purposes of trade, no_inconvenience would result from the surplus. Release it to-morrow, and it would be driven away by the paper which, unfortunately, occupies the place of gold. But, Mr. Chairman, I will admit that there exists the other danger, to which the gentleman from New York has alluded. I entirely concur in what he says of the danger of extravagant, and, perhaps, unconstitutional appropriations. For the sake of the purity of the Democratic party, I should like to remove that temptation out of their way. But, sir, for the purpose of depriving the policy of 1846 of the credit due it, he has attributed our enormous revenues to the Treasury circulars issued by Mr. Walker, and which, when afterwards reversed by the decision of the Supreme Court, were made the law of the land by a special act. The construction put upon the law of 1846 by Secretary Walker, was certainly in conformity with the spirit or intention of the Legislature that passed it. If not precisely in conformity with the letter of that act, the design of Congress, as every one knows, was, that the duty should be assessed on the value attached to the foreign article at the time it left the foreign port.

But the gentleman may be reminded of another thing. Our revenues from the tariff of 1846, have been diminished by the construction which one of his own Secretaries put upon the act of 1850. There is not a lawyer in this House that would say the freight is not a part of the costs and charges of goods imported, which the law of 1850 required to

Ho. OF REPS.

be added to them, and included in their value in fixing the duty.

Mr. MILLSON. I regret that my colleague thinks that freight across the Atlantic should, under that law, be considered as entering into the valuation upon the goods on which duty is to be paid. He has just said that it was the object of the special act of 1850-for which I voted with much misgiving-to legalize the Treasury circulars of Mr. Walker. I beg leave to suggest to my colleague, that the Treasury circulars of Mr. Walker, to which he alludes, expressly excluded freight as one of the costs upon which duty was to be calculated.

Mr. MEADE. My colleague has mistaken me in one particular. When I said that was the object of the law, I had reference to the law of 1846, which had for its object the fixing of a valuation at the foreign port, at the time the article was exported to this country. That was the object of that law, and whatever may have been the object of the law of 1850, I say that, sitting as a judge upon the bench, there is not a lawyer in this House who would not decide, that the cost and charges would include freight, whatever may have been the opinion of Mr. Walker, or the intention of Congress. Mr. Walker's views in relation to this matter accorded with my own wishes, for I preferred that all dutiable articles should be estimated as cheaply as possible, with a view to as small a tax as possible. But still, construing the law as a lawyer, I could not exclude freight from the costs and charges any more than I could commissions, insurance, or any other charge.

Now, I do not desire, by any means, to find fault with this construction. I only alluded to it, to prove to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS,] that so far from being benefited by the construction given these laws, the revenue has been diminished by it. But the remarks of the gentleman from New York carry me back to the first time I took my seat in this Hall in 1848, when I listened to the eloquent remarks of the then chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means from Ohio, [Mr. Vinton.] That committee was then under the control of the Whig party. I was then alarmed, or rather I should have been alarmed, if I had been subject to alarms, by the doleful anticipations which were then indulged in by that gentleman, in respect to what would be the awful. condition of the Treasury in time to come. Debt, bankruptcy, and ruin to the country, were the hobgoblins which walked through his speech of that day. The contrast could but strike me most forcibly, when I heard the other day another leader of the Whig party bewailing the condition of the country, in consequence of its immense surplus revenues, and predicting a speedy dissolution from plethora and the wealth of the Treasury. We told the Whigs in 1848 to trust to the Democracy -they would take care that there should be no bankruptcy, no ruin. We tell them now to continue that trust; we will take care that there shall be no death from plethora. We will stop the supply by reducing the tax. That gentleman ought, in the course of his remarks, (if he really designed to act the counsellor,) to have read his friends in the White House a lecture on the subject of their own delinquencies.

Having an overflowing Treasury, and millions upon millions daily accumulating there-owing $6,000,000 to Mexico, all of which was bearing interest-why did they not, as they were urged to do by the Mexican Government, pay that debt, and thus dispose of that amount of surplus, and stop the interest on $6,000,000? Though urged in the strongest terms which necessity could prompt, and even our magnanimity as a nation appealed to, the Administration refused to anticipate that debt, preferring to pay the interest on $6,000,000, and at the same time purchasing at a premium of fourteen per cent. our own bonds having years to run. I did all I could to prevent this; but I was not heeded. And here candor compels me to say that the Democratic party in this House failed to do their duty in this matter, in not coercing the Administration to pay Mexico her debt at the time and in the manner she desired.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am unwilling that this large amount of surplus revenue should remain in the Treasury, or that any more should accumulate;