to repeal or diminish the duties on various articles of general consumption.

This hostility to the tariff had been manifested early in the session by many of the friends of the administration; but an equally strong feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing law, on the ground of its inadequate protection to the woollen manufacturer, had induced the friends of the policy to bring forward the subject with the view of obtaining a modification of the law more favorable to their interests, and to prevent the frauds, which were alleged to be daily practised on the

revenue.

A bill was accordingly reported in the House of Representatives by Mr Mallary, chairman of the committee on manufactures, on the 27th of Jan., 1830, to regulate the entry of woollen importations. This bill provided, that a sworn copy of the invoice of manufactures, of which wool is a component part, should be delivered to the collector and compared with the goods which were to be sent to the custom-house for the purpose of comparison.

Provision was also made for the appraisement of the goods, and for the forfeiture of thereof 1 if the appraised value exceeded the invoice price more than 10 per cent; thereof if more than 15 per cent; and for the forfeiture of the whole, if more than 20 per cent. A reappraisement could be demanded by the importer, or he might appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury, and provision was also made for forfeiture for altering or counterfeiting the marks

on the goods, and to prevent frauds or false valuations by foreign partners or agents of the resident importers. The bill received its 1st and 2d readings and then remained on the table until the 15th of April, when, after disposing of some preliminary business in the Committee of the whole house, Mr Mallary moved, that the Committee take up the bill amending the tariff, which was carried.

The bill having been read through

Mr Mallary explained that the object of the bill being merely to give effect to the Tariff Bill of 1828, it involved no principle which was likely to distract the opinions of the House, as he presumed that all would unite in giving force to an existing law.

He then proceeded to show in what manner the law of 1828 had been violated, and to point out the efficacy of the remedy proposed by the bill under consideration. On the policy of foreign countries in reference to their trade, he made some remarks, exonerating France, Holland, &c, from any attempts to embarrass our trade. England adopting her new notions of free trade, has also adopted the impression that it is almost doing God service to put down our protective policy. He stated what were the regulations of the existing law by which collectors of the Custom Houses were governed. He showed that the cause of the great frauds that had been committed, was to be found in the fact that the goods were not left in the possession of the collector, as

the law presumed that they would be, and that the only goods over which he was able to exercise control, were the packages in the Appraiser's Office. He read from a private memorandum some opinions on the subject of the law.

Mr Cambreleng wished to know the authority to which he referred.

Mr Mallary replied that the authority was a good one.

Mr Drayton rose to order. He wished to know if the gentleman from Vermont was not bound to give up his authority when asked for it.

The Chair decided that Mr Mallary was in order, and that it was entirely at his discretion to give or withhold his authority.

Mr Mallary then proceeded to read the memorandum which he had commenced, together with another which specifies the forms at the Custom House. One package in twenty only is sent by the Appraiser, and the other nineteen are distributed in all quarters, where they are beyond the reach of the Collector either for the purpose of enforcing penalty or ascertaining value.

He stated that goods which it was known would produce five dollars in Boston, had passed the Custom House in New York under the dollar minimum.

As to the evasion of the revenue, he referred to the message of the President, and to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, to show that they are such as require remedy. The Collector of New York also admitted that monstrous evasions of the revenue have taken place: but he wanted

the power to prevent them. Here he complimented the vigilance and industry of the present Collector in the highest terms. He had done his duty as far as he could, and the present bill would give that power which is required to make his exertions effectual. He stated, on the authority of an Appraiser, what was the practice in the Appraising Department.

Having gone through these statements, he inquired where was the security which this law was to give to the revenue? It was alleged that the foreign manufacturer and agent are honest men, who are to be trusted. Yet members of this House, it had been declared on this floor, could not be trusted to calculate their own mileage and the Speaker could not be permitted to appoint a draughtsman.

He took a view of the condition of the importing business. Before the war, there were about fifty importing merchants in New York: now, there are not more than five or six. At Boston there were thirty or forty: there are now about seven. There are about six or seven out

of seventy in Philadelphia; and they are in about the same ratio in Baltimore. Although there were formerly about 160 importing merchants, he could only now make out about sixteen. The nature of the importing business has also undergone great changes. He admitted the influence which auction sales had had in the corruption of trade, but contended that this corruption had been greatly increased by the successful frauds practised on the revenue.

On the subject of the individuals who are engaged in the importing trade, he stated that many of these were foreigners, who came here to carry on importation, abuse our country, live two or three in a garret, where they make out their invoices, write essays on free trade, and having answered the purposes for which they came, return home to enjoy the profits of their labors. Thus the fair and high reputation of the American merchant had been undermined: but he hoped that the day was at hand when this reputation would be again placed on its once elevated station.

He stated, that from all the evidence he had seen, he was satisfied that in ten years there had been evasions of the revenue to the amount of thirty millions, being an average of three millions a year, in consequence of the fraudulent invoices of ad valorem goods. He then referred to the progress which smuggling had made within a short time, on the frontier. From an investigation, he had recently come to the inevitable conclusion, that great frauds were thus committed on the publie.

After going through the general subject, he explained the details of the bill, as regards their character and operation, obviating the objections which had been made against it. The Committee had avoided the introduction of any new principle, and had kept as near the letter of the old law as possible.

He concluded with urging on the House the necessity of enacting some remedies for the

evils which had been proved to exist.

The subject was then postponed for other business, until the 26th of April, when upon motion of Mr Mallary the house again went into Committee of the whole, and resumed the consideration of the bill. Mr McDuffie replied to Mr Mallary, and commenced by saying, that the bill under consideration was designed to enforce existing laws of the country, and effect a more faithful collection of the duties on imports. This was an object right and proper in itself, and one which he was willing to promote. He would be always in favor of enforcing the faithful collection of the revenue, even though he might object to the laws, by which it was levied. In this case, however, he would attain the faithful collection of the revenue by a mode different from that contemplated by the bill. He would do it by diminishing the daties, and thereby removing the inducement to evade the duties. With this view he moved to amend the bill by striking out all of the bill after the first section, and inserting provisions reducing the duties on woollen and cotton manufactures, iron in bars and bolts, hemp flax, molasses, indigo, cotton bagging, to what they were previous to the tariff of 1824; and that the duty on salt be reduced to 15 cents per bushel of 56 pounds, from and after the 30th of June next, and 10 cents after June, 1831.

Mr McDuffie said that the

course prescribed by his amendment, would afford the best security for the faithful collection of

and force her to resort to a direct tax to supply the loss, and gentlemen would find that State not going with them much longer in supporting the other parts of the Tariff.

After some desultory debate the House adjourned to the next day, when Mr Gorham again briefly explained his object in making the motion and asked what would be the effect of now moving the previous question?

The Speaker said it would then bring back the House to the question of reconsideration.

Mr Gorham then asked, that, supposing he withdrew his motion to reconsider, and then moved the previous question, what would be the effect?

The Speaker said the effect would be to bring back the bill before the House in its original shape, as reported by the Committee on Manufactures, excluding all the amendments made in Committee of the Whole.

Mr Gorham said, such was his own view. He would therefore withdraw his motion to reconsider, and move the previous question.

He considered the vote upon the Salt Duty as breaking in upon the present system of revenue, instead of regulating its collection, which was the object of the original bill now under consideration. He appealed to gentlemen whether it was possible to pass any bill on this subject at this Session, if the whole field of debate was thus thrown open. Mr G. concluded by saying, that, under this view of the case, if any gentleman would move to reconsider the vote upon the Salt Duty, so as to make

it possible to agree upon any bill upon this subject, he would, to make way for such a motion, withdraw the motion he had made.

Mr Doddridge, of Virginia, having intimated a disposition to make the motion suggested by the member from Massachusetts, Mr Gorham withdrew his motion, and Mr Doddridge moved to reconsider the vote upon M Brringer's amendment for reducing the duty on Salt.

Mr Wayne, of Georgia, asked whether it was the intention of the gentleman from Massachusetts to renew his motion if the pending motion was rejected.

Mr Gorham declining to make any pledge on that point

Mr Wayne, taking it for granted that such was the intention of Mr Gorham, made a decided speech against the course now proposed, considering it as a mere proposi tion, call it by what name gentlemen would, of bargain and sale; against which he inveighed with considerable warmth and zeal.

Mr Barringer, of North Carolina, deprecated a protracted debate on this question of reconsideration, and expressed great regret that so much difficulty should exist in obtaining a reduction of the duty on this necessary of life. He dwelt upon the course of the State of North Carolina in reference to this duty and to the Tariff generally, and made a very strong appeal to the magnanimity and spirit of conciliation of members from other States to grant this little boon to a State which had heretofore asked for so little, and submitted so cheerfully to the laws regulating the duties on im.