{"character_count": 6135, "word_count": 1071, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9595999717712402], "ccnet_perplexity": [1076.699951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}



nounced by them from disbelief in It's illegality
or impolicy, or even from patriotism, or any NOR.
al heroism; any sublimity of public feeling and
tpublic principle, as invoked to believe but
from utter inability to retain it, and at the same
time obtain either direct or Incidental protection to
manufactures above 20 per cent duty. 1t is to
be surrendered, then, as mere bargain far
business trGnsGction-a sheer quad pro gao to
get, instead of it, system Of protection deemed
more valuable But if it could be retained, and
the high tariff be also obtained would it not be :?
Have we not had ample evidence of that in two
successive vetoed bills; in attempts again to effect
it by an amendment to this very bill in the SEN
ate; and, lastly, by new separate bill to restore
the distribution, which reposes now under your
eyes, sir, on your own table, and which hurried
ly passed the other House the heel of this, and
is destined, suppose, to accompany this to the
other end Of Pennsylvania avenue2 No, sir
Some OF US have lived little too long to be hood
winled into any belief that distribution is
dered in this bill from any cause except painful
necessity, for any length Of time-even single
hour-beyond their ability to restore it. While
a Whig majority exists in both Houses, the only
obstacle-the only salvation-from the unnumber-
ed evils connected with the partial assumption of
State debts through the distribution, is the firm
ness and independence of the Executive.


So much for that reason in favor ofthe bill. 1t
is something, I admit but under all the clrcum-
stances, it is forced temporary, uncertain bene-
fit and for the continuance of which we are to de-
pend on other measures and efforts than this.


But what are those Senators on this side of the
House compelled to abandon in order to obtain
that supposed equivalent? First, all our princi-
piles of free trade, and all our opposition to an un
constitutional system of direct protection to one
class or section of country at the expense others
We believe, conscienonsy, that the direct protec-
ton of manufactures is power not granted to the
General Government, but retained to each State,
ito be used according to its own local interests and
policy, and belongs to it as properly as the pay
ment of its own debts 1t is too late in the day,
sir now to pretend that this bill does not possess
that direct and high protective character. What
would stranger have supposed, who, for the first
time, entered our galleries to-day2 Not that rev.
enue was the topic of discusson-the conS~aanlG-
ton decoutLy a0ished but high protection, and no.
thing but high protection, with most OF the speak
ers What has been the whole argument of its
friends to-day? What their impassioned appeals.
but to save the manufacturers? What but to aid
that class, and that alone, in the present embar-
rassments extending to all classes We hear
nothing of savingthe farmerS-nothing of helping
the merchants though all are distressed, and
though the capital ofthe manufacturers (Which the
Senator from Rhode Island appeals to me as be-
ing three hundred millions) is doubtless so; but
Is at the same time, but one-tenth OF three thou
sand millions, which belong to the farmers. The
Senator from Massachusetts, asks, likewise, If
the Constitution itself not adopted for protec
ton Yes But, in Gods name, and under its
solemnity, let me ask, for protection to whom 2
To the farmer surely, and the merchant, as much
as to the manufacturer. To the twelve or thirteen
millions of people now connected with our agrl-
culture, certainly quite as much as to only the
million and half connected with manufactures
90 with the Constitution for equal protection to
the whole in their lawful pursuits, but for no ex-
elusive or partial protection to either.


So far as regards protection to any, by duties
imposed for revenue, | am willing and anxious
that all should equally receive any incidental aid
which those duties, equally imposed, will yield to
any of them against foreign rival products. Be
side distance and expenses, which operate to pro-
tect our own labor and industry against foreign
labor and industry, every duty of even 5, 10, or
20 per cent furnishes in its consequences. much
additional protection. And if that duty be mpos-
ed in nearly horizontal form-as the Senator
from Rhode Island admits is fairest-and if it is
imposed equally on foreign grain wool, hides, cot
ton &c. as well as on foreign cotton and woollen
cloths, on iron, and sugar. and salt-then the op-
portunty for favoritism is excluded-lealousles
are hushed-the revenue increased-and all are
protected equally and incidentally against rival
products from abroad This is one great argu-
ment for raising revenue by tariff, instead OF dl-
rect taxes, or other levies on property because
thus only you enabled to yield incidental pro-
lection


This bill, however, instead of assuming that e
quail character pushes the duties in many cases to
loo and 12O per cent; while, in others, it keeps
them down to twenty, or under. 1t assesses the
very highest duties to aid manufactures; and the
lowest, or none when agriculture is in question.
Instead of curing what the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania objected to in my scheme-that "French
brandy and coffee might be ta1ed nearly alike


it taxes the sugar the poor higher than the
wines of the rich it burdens the rolled iron; the
coarse cottons the woolens; the salt used in
every ship-yard, and on every farm, and in every
log cabin, more than the jewels and silks worn in
| the saloons of wealth and fashion.


| And am to be invoked to give preference to
so invidious measure this?


That Senator complains, also, ofthe od O0IOrenl
rates of duty advocate as being worse than spe-
cifc ones, because the income from them would
| fall off in embarrassed times under lower prices


But does he not see that expenses ought also to
fall off in such tines and less revenue be collect
eda And does he not see, further, that the owner
of the goods when they worth less, is less able
| to paw as high an aggregate duty on them, as


hon tbev are worth more ? In that way of an