of that year, in some of its provisions, was framed on principles directly adverse to the declared wishes of the friends of the policy of protection. I have heard, with session of 1816, was the result of his inquiries and reflections, and embodies the principles which he thought applicable to the subject. It has been said, that the tariff of 1816 was a measure of mere reve-out vouching for the fact, that it was so nue, and that it only reduced the war duties to a peace standard. It is true that the question then was, how much and in what way should the double duties of the war be reduced? Now, also, the question is, on what articles shall the duties be reduced so as to subject the amounts of the future revenue to the wants of the government? Then it was deemed an inquiry of the first importance, as it should be now, how, the reduction should be made, so as to secure proper encouragement to our domestic industry. That this was a leading object in the arrangement of the tariff of 1816, I well remember, and it is demonstrated by the language of Mr. Dallas. He says in his report: * * * * framed, upon the advice of a prominent citizen, now abroad, with the view of ultimately defeating the bill, and with assurances that, being altogether unacceptable to the friends of the American system, the bill would be lost. Be that as it may, the most exceptional features of the bill were stamped upon it, against the earnest remonstrances of the friends of the system, by the votes of southern members, upon a principle, I think, as unsound in legislation as it is reprehensible in ethics. The bill was passed, notwithstanding all this, it having been deemed better to take the bad along with the good which it contained, than reject it altogether. Subsequent legislation has corrected the error then per"There are few, if any governments, petrated, but still that measure is vehewhich do not regard the establishment of mently denounced by gentlemen who condomestic manufactures as a chief object|tributed to make it what it was. of public policy. The United States have Thus, sir, has this great system of proalways so regarded it. The tection been gradually built, stone upon demands of the country, while the acqui- stone, and step by step, from the fourth of sitions of supplies from foreign nations was July, 1789, down to the present period. In either prohibited or impracticable, may every stage of its progress it has received have afforded sufficient inducement for the deliberate sanction of Congress. this investment of capital, and this appli- vast majority of the people of the United cation of labor; but the inducement, in its States has approved and continue to apnecessary extent, must fail when the day prove it. Every chief magistrate of the of competition returns. Upon that change United States, from Washington to the in the condition of the country, the preser-present, in some form or other, has given vation of the manufactures, which private citizens under favorable auspices have constituted the property of the nation, becomes a consideration of general policy, to be resolved by a recollection of past embarrassments; by the certainty of an in-judicious tariff. creased difficulty of reinstating, upon any emergency, the manufactures which shall be allowed to perish and pass away," &c. The measure of protection which he proposed was not adopted, in regard to some leading articles, and there was great difficulty in ascertaining what it ought to have been. But the principle was then distinctly asserted and fully sanctioned. The subject of the American system was again brought up in 1820, by the bill reported by the chairman of the committee of manufactures, now a member of the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the principle was successfully maintained by the representatives of the people; but the bill which they passed was defeated in the Senate. It was revived in 1824; the whole ground carefully and deliberately explored, and the bill then introduced, receiving all the sanctions of the constitution, became the law of the land. An amendment of the system was proposed in 1828, to the history of which I refer with no agreeable recollections. The bill A to it the authority of his name; and however the opinions of the existing President are interpreted South of Mason's and Dixon's line, on the north they are at least understood to favor the establishment of a The question, therefore, which we are now called upon to determine, is not whether we shall establish a new and doubtful system of policy, just proposed, and for the first time presented to our consideration, but whether we shall break down and destroy a long established system, patiently and carefully built up and sanctioned, during a series of years, again and again, by the nation and its highest and most revered authorities. Are we not bound deliberately to consider whether we can proceed to this work of destruction without a violation of the public faith? The people of the United States have justly supposed that the policy of protecting their industry against foreign legislation and foreign industry was fully settled, not by a single act, but by repeated and deliberate acts of government, performed at distant and frequent intervals. In full confidence that the policy was firmly and unchangeably fixed, thousands upon thousands have invested their capital, purchased a vast amount of real and other estate, made per manent establishments, and accommodated their industry. Can we expose to utter and irretrievable ruin this countless multitude, without justly incurring the reproach of violating the national faith? Such are the origin, duration, extent and sanctions of the policy which we are now called upon to subvert. Its beneficial effects, although they may vary in degree, have been felt in all parts of the Union. To none, I verily believe, has it been prejudicial. In the North, every where, testimonials are borne to the high prosperity which it has diffused. There, all branches of industry are animated and flourishing. Commerce, foreign and domestic, active; cities and towns springing up, enlarging and beautifying; navigation fully and profitably employed, and the whole face of the country smiling with improvement, cheerfulness and abundance. come naturalized in our country; whilst, happily, there are many others who readily attach themselves to our principles and our institutions. The honest, patient and industrious German readily unites with our people, establishes himself upon some of our fat land, fills his capacious barn, and enjoys in tranquillity, the abundant fruits which his diligence gathers around him, always ready to fly to the standard of his adopted country, or of its laws, when called by the duties of patriotism. The gay, the versatile, the philosophic Frenchman, accommodating himself cheerfully to all the vicissitudes of life, incorporates himself without difficulty in our society. But, of all foreigners, none amalgamate themselves so quickly with our people as the natives of the Emerald Isle. In some of the visions which have passed through my imagination, I have supposed that Ireland was originally, part and parcel of this continent, and that, by some extraordinary convulsion of nature, it was torn from America, and drifting across the ocean, was placed in the unfortunate vicinity of Great Britain. The same open-heartedness; the same generous hospitality; the same careless and uncalculating indifference about human life, characterize the inhabitants of both countries. Kentucky has been sometimes called the Ireland of America. And I have no doubt, that if the current of emigration were reversed, and set from America upon the shores of Europe, instead of bearing from Europe to America, every American emigrant to Ireland would there find, as every Irish emigrant here finds, a hearty welcome and a happy home! When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradual destruction of the American System, what is their substitute? Free trade! Free trade! The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child, in its nurse's arms, for the moon, or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It never has existed, it never will exist. Trade implies, at least two parties. To be free, it should be fair, equal and reciprocal. But if we throw our ports wide open to the admission of foreign productions, free of all duty, what ports of any other foreign nation shall we find open to the free admission of our surplus produce? We may break down all barriers to free trade on our part, but the work will not be complete until foreign powers shall have removed theirs. There But I have said that the system nomiwould be freedom on one side, and restric-nally called "free trade," so earnestly and tions, prohibitions and exclusions on the other. The bolts, and the bars, and the chains of all other nations will remain undisturbed. It is, indeed, possible, that our industry and commerce would accommodate themselves to this unequal and unjust state of things; for, such is the flexibility of our nature, that it bends itself to all circumstances. The wretched prisoner incarcerated in a jail, after a long time becomes reconciled to his solitude, and regularly notches down the passing days of his confinement. eloquently recommended to our adoption, is a mere revival of the British colonial system, forced upon us by Great Britain during the existence of our colonial vassalage. The whole system is fully explained and illustrated in a work published as far back as the year 1750, entitled "The Trade and Navigation of Great Britain considered, by Joshua Gee," with extracts from which I have been furnished by the diligent researches of a friend. It will be seen from these, that the South Carolina policy now, is identical with the long cherished policy of Great Britain, which remains the same as it was when the thirteen colonies were part of the British empire. Gentlemen deceive themselves. It is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. It is in effect, the British colonial system that we are invited to I regret, Mr. President, that one topic adopt; and, if their policy prevail, it will lead substantially to the re-colonization of these States, under the commercial dominion of Great Britain. And whom do we find some of the principal supporters, out of Congress, of this foreign system? Mr. President, there are are some foreigners who always remain exotics, and never be has, I think, unnecessarily been introduced into this debate. I allude to the charge brought against the manufacturing system, as favoring the growth of aristocracy. If it were true, would gentlemen prefer supporting foreign accumulations of wealth, by that description of industry, rather than in their own country? But is I plant myself upon this fact, of cheapness and superiority, as upon impregnable ground. Gentlemen may tax their ingenuity and produce a thousand speculative solutions of the fact, but the fact itself will remain undisturbed. it correct? The joint stock companies of fraudulent invoices and false denominathe north, as I understand them, are no- tion. thing more than associations, sometimes of hundreds, by means of which the small earnings of many are brought into a common stock, and the associates, obtaining corporate privileges, are enabled to prosecute, under one superintending head, their business to better advantage. Nothing This brings me to consider what I apcan be more essentially democratic or bet-prehend to have been the most efficient of ter devised to counterpoise the influence of all the causes in the reduction of the prices individual wealth. In Kentucky, almost of manufactured articles-and that is COMevery manufactory known to me, is in the PETITION. By competition, the total hands of enterprising and self-made men, amount of the supply is increased, and by who have acquired whatever wealth they increase of the supply, a competition in the possess by patient and diligent labor. sale ensues, and this enables the consumer Comparisons are odious, and but in defence, to buy at lower rates. Of all human would not be made by me. But is there powers operating on the affairs of manmore tendency to aristocracy in a manu-kind, none is greater than that of compefactory supporting hundreds of freemen, or in a cotton plantation, with its not less numerous slaves, sustaining perhaps only two white families-that of the master and the overseer? tition. It is action and re-action. It operates between individuals in the same nation, and between different nations. It resembles the meeting of the mountain torrent, grooving by its precipitous motion, I pass, with pleasure, from this disagree- its own channel, and ocean's tide. Unopable topic, to two general propositions, posed, it sweeps everything before it; but, which cover the entire ground of debate. counterpoised, the waters become calm, The first is, that under the operation of the safe and regular. It is like the segments American System, the objects which it pro- of a circle or an arch; taken separately, tects and fosters are brought to the con- each is nothing; but in their combination sumer at cheaper prices than they com- they produce efficiency, symmetry, and manded prior to its introduction, or, than perfection. By the American System this they would command if it did not exist. vast power has been excited in America, If that be true, ought not the country to be and brought into being to act in co-operacontented and satisfied with the system, tion or collision with European industry. unless the second proposition, which I Europe acts within itself, and with Amerimean presently also to consider, is unfound-ca; and America acts within itself, and ed? And that is, that the tendency of the system is to sustain, and that it has upheld the prices of all our agricultural and other produce, including cotton. with Europe. The consequence is, the reduction of prices in both hemispheres. Nor is it fair to argue from the reduction of prices in Europe, to her own presumed skill and labor, exclusively. We affect her prices, and she affects ours. This must always be the case, at least in reference to any articles as to which there is not a total non-intercourse; and if our industry, by diminishing the demand for her supplies, should produce a diminution in the price of those supplies, it would be very unfair to ascribe that reduction to her ingenuity instead of placing it to the credit of our own skill and excited industry. And is the fact not indisputable, that all essential objects of consumption effected by the tariff, are cheaper and better since the act of 1824, than they were for several years prior to that law? I appeal for its truth to common observation and to all practical men. I appeal to the farmer of the country, whether he does not purchase on better terms his iron, salt, brown sugar, cotton goods, and woolens, for his laboring people? And I ask the cotton planter if he has not been better and more cheaply The great law of price is determined by supplied with his cotton bagging? In re- supply and demand. Whatever affects gard to this latter article, the gentleman either, affects the price. If the supply is from South Carolina was mistaken in sup- increased, the demand remaining the same, posing that I complained that, under the the price declines; if the demand is inexisting duty the Kentucky manufacturer creased, the supply remaining the same, could not compete with the Scotch. The the price advances; if both supply and deKentuckian furnishes a more substantial mand are undiminished, the price is staand a cheaper article, and at a more uni- tionary, and the price is influenced exactly form and regular price. But it was the in proportion to the degree of disturbance frauds, the violations of law of which I to the demand or supply. It is therefore a did complain; not smuggling, in the com- great error to suppose that an existing or mon sense of that practice, which has new duty necessarily becomes a component something bold, daring, and enterprising element to its exact amount of price. If in it, but mean, barefaced cheating, by the proportion of demand and supply are varied by the duty, either in augmenting the supply, or diminishing the demand, or vice versa, price is affected to the extent of that variation. But the duty never becomes an integral part of the price, except in the instances where the demand and the supply remain after the duty is imposed, precisely what they were before, or the demand is increased, and the supply remains stationary. Competition, therefore, wherever existing, whether at home or abroad, is the parent cause of cheapness. If a high duty excites production at home, and the quantity of the domestic article exceeds the amount which had been previously imported the price will fall. This accounts for an extraordinary fact stated by a Senator from Missouri. Three cents were laid as a duty upon a pound of lead, by the act of 1828. The price at Galena, and the other lead mines, afterwards fell to one and a half cents per pound. Now it is obvious that the duty did not, in this case, enter into the price for it was twice the amount of the price. What produced the fall? It was stimulated production at home, excited by the temptation of the exclusive possession of the home market. This state of things could not last. Men would not continue an unprofitable pursuit; some abandoned the business, or the total quantity produced was diminished, and living prices have been the consequence. But, break down the domestic supply, place us again in a state of dependence on the foreign source, and can it be doubted that we should ultimately have to supply ourselves at dearer rates? It is not fair to credit the foreign market with the depression of prices produced there by the influence of our competition. Let the competition be withdrawn, and their prices would instantly rise. But, it is argued that if, by the skill, experience, and perfection which we have acquired in certain branches of manufacture, they can be made as cheap as similar articles abroad, and enter fairly into competition with them, why not repeal the duties as to those articles? And why should we? Assuming the truth of the supposition the foreign article would not be introduced in the regular course of trade, but would remain excluded by the possession of the home market, which the domestic article had obtained. The repeal, therefore, would have no legitimate effect. But might not the foreign article be imported in vast quantities, to glut our markets, break down our establishments, and ultimately to enable the foreigner to monopolize the supply of our consumption? America is the greatest foreign market for European manufactures. It is that to which European attention is constantly directed. If a great house becomes bankrupt there, its store houses are emptied, and the goods are shipped to America, where, in consequence of our auctions, and our custom-house credits, the greatest facilities are afforded in the sale of them. Combinations among manufacturers might take place, or even the operations of foreign governments might be directed to the destruction of our establishments. A repeal, therefore, of one protecting duty, from some one or all of these causes, would be followed by flooding the country with the foreign fabric, surcharging the market, reducing the price, and a complete prostration of our manufactories; after which the foreigner would leisurely look about to indemnify himself in the increased prices which he would be enabled to command by his monopoly of the supply of our consumption. What American citizen, after the government had displayed this vacillating policy, would be again tempted to place the smallest confidence in the public faith, and adventure once more in this branch of industry? Gentlemen have allowed to the manufacturing portions of the community no peace; they have been constantly threatened with the overthrow of the American System. From the year 1820, if not from 1816, down to this time, they have been held in a condition of constant alarm and insecurity. Nothing is more prejudicial to the great interests of a nation than unsettled and varying policy. Although every appeal to the national legislature has been responded to in conformity with the wishes and sentiments of the great majority of the people, measures of protection have only been carried by such small majorities as to excite hopes on the one hand, and fears on the other. Let the country breathe, let its vast resources be developed, let its energies be fully put forth, let it have tranquillity, and my word for it, the degree of perfection in the arts which it will exhibit, will be greater than that which has been presented, astonishing as our progress has been. Although some branches of our manufactures might, and in foreign markets now do, fearlessly contend with similar foreign fabrics, there are many others yet in their infancy, struggling with the difficulties which encompass them. We should look at the whole system, and recollect that time, when we contemplate the great movements of a nation, is very different from the short period which is allotted for the duration of individual life. The honorable gentleman from South Carolina well and eloquently said, in 1824, "No great interest of any country ever yet grew up in a day; no new branch of industry can become firmly and profitably established but in a long course of years; every thing, indeed, great or good, is matured by slow degrees: that which attains a speedy maturity is of small value, and is destined to a brief existence. It is the order of Providence, that powers gradually developed, shall alone attain permanency and perfection. Thus must it be with our national institutions, and national character itself." I feel most sensibly, Mr. President, how much I have trespassed upon the Senate. My apology is a deep and deliberate conviction, that the great cause under debate involves the prosperity and the destiny of the Union. But the best requital I can make, for the friendly indulgence which has been extended to me by the Senate, and for which I shall ever retain sentiments of lasting gratitude, is to proceed with as little delay as practicable, to the conclusion of a discourse which has not been more tedious to the Senate than exhausting to me. I have now to consider the remaining of the two propositions which I have already announced. That is : of the ocean, large portions of it could never profitably reach the foreign market. But let us quit this field of theory, clear as it is, and look at the practical operation of the system of protection, beginning with the most valuable staple of our agricul ture. But if all this reasoning were totally fallacious-if the price of manufactured articles were really higher, under the American system, than without it, I should still argue that high or low prices were themselves relative-relative to the ability to pay them. It is in vain to tempt, to tantalize us with the lower prices of European fabrics than our own, if we have nothing wherewith to purchase them. If, by the home exchanges, we can be supplied with necessary, even if they are dearer and worse, articles of American production than the foreign, it is better than not to be supplied at all. And how would the large portion of our country Secondly. That under the operation of which I have described be supplied, but the American System, the products of our for the home exchanges? A poor people, agriculture command a higher price than destitute of wealth or of exchangeable they would do without it, by the creation commodities, has nothing to purchase forof a home market; and by the augmenta- eign fabrics. To them they are equally tion of wealth produced by manufacturing beyond their reach, whether their cost be industry, which enlarges our powers of a dollar or a guinea. It is in this view of consumption both of domestic and foreign the matter that Great Britain, by her vast articles. The importance of the home wealth-her excited and protected industry market is among the established maxims-is enabled to bear a burden of taxation which are universally recognized by all which, when compared to that of other writers and all men. However some may nations, appears enormous; but which, differ as to the relative advantages of the when her immense riches are compared to foreign and the home market, none deny theirs, is light and trivial. The gentleto the latter great value and high conside- man from South Carolina has drawn a ration. It is nearer to us; beyond the lively and flattering picture of our coasts, control of foreign legislation; and undis- bays, rivers, and harbors; and he argues turbed by those vicissitudes to which all that these proclaimed the design of Proviinternational intercourse is more or less dence, that we should be a commercial exposed. The most stupid are sensible of people. I agree with him. We differ the benefit of a residence in the vicinity of only as to the means. He would cherish a large manufactory, or of a market town, the foreign, and neglect the internal trade. of a good road, or of a navigable stream, I would foster both. What is navigation which connects their farms with some without ships, or ships without cargoes? great capital. If the pursuits of all men By penetrating the bosoms of our mounwere perfectly the same, although they tains, and extracting from them their prewould be in possession of the greatest cious treasures; by cultivating the earth, abundance of the particular produce of and securing a home market for its rich their industry, they might, at the same and abundant products; by employing the time, be in extreme want of other neces-water power with which we are blessed; sary articles of human subsistence. The by stimulating and protecting our native uniformity of the general occupation would industry, in all its forms; we shall but preclude all exchanges, all commerce It nourish and promote the prosperity of is only in the diversity of the vocations of commerce, foreign and domestic. the members of a community that the I have hitherto considered the question means can be found for those salutary ex- in reference only to a state of peace; but changes which conduce to the general a season of war ought not to be entirely prosperity. And the greater that diversity, overlooked. We have enjoyed near twenthe more extensive and the more animat- ty years of peace; but who can tell when ing is the circle of exchange. Even if the storm of war shall again break forth? foreign markets were freely and widely Have we forgotten so soon, the privations open to the reception of our agricultural to which, not merely our brave soldiers produce, from its bulky nature, and the and our gallant tars were subjected, bu distance of the interior, and the dangers the whole community, during the last |