tions. Now, Mr. President, I will point out to the Senator the Democratic features of this bill. It has reduced the duty upon salt from eight cents to half a cent. It has reduced the duty upon sugar from two and a half cents to one cent per pound. It has reduced the duty on all that class of cotton manufactures, whether white or printed, which is consumed by the laborers, farmers, and mechanics of the United States, God knows how much! But I sincerely believe that in this bill, on all that class of manufactures consumed by the poor and middle ranks, there is a reduction of duties greater than on any other class of articles contained in the bill; and I have expressed the opinion, which I sincerely believe, that the repeal of the cotton minimums- -an invention which never was known until it was introduced in the bill of 1816, and, I believe, unknown to the custom house laws of any other country, so far as my knowledge extends I believe that the striking out of that will alone enable the people of the United States to consume an increase importation approaching to ten millions of dollars at prices little more than two-thirds of that which they have now to pay.

I was obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts for some little evidence in favor of the Democratic character of this bill, in certain resolutions passed in Boston, in the year 1820, drawn up, I believe, by the honorable member himself, and supported and sustained by him soon after the commencement of the spirit which has resulted in the establishment of the protective system. The duties then under the act of 1816 were about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. on the great mass of manufactures made out of cotton, wool, and iron, and all the other duties were corresponding. The proposition was then to enhance the duties in about the degree of enhancement which took place under the tariff of 1824; and it was in opposition to this, that a meeting of the merchants of Boston, in which the honorable Senator from Massachusetts bore a distinguished part, passed certain resolutions some of which I now recollect. One of them I distinctly remember, and it affirmed that the effect of this protecting law upon the manufactures of the country would redound to the benefit of great capitalists, and not to that of the labor of the country. That was a great political propo

sition.

Mr. WEBSTER. Does the Senator happen to have those resolutions in his desk? I have no recollection of that.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I am sorry to say that I have not got a copy of the resolutions, but I believe a copy can be obtained.

Mr. WESTCOTT here laid on the desk of the Senator from South Carolina a file of the "Globe," which was supposed to contain the resolutions referred to.

Mr. WEBSTER. I do not wish to trouble the gentleman now; at his convenience, perhaps, he may be able to furnish the resolutions.

Mr. McDUFFIE proceeded. This, sir, was one of the resolutions. Another was in answer to the allegation that the establishment of these factories would give an increased market to the farmer. One of these resolutions was in these words as far as I can recollect :

"They cannot perceive how the farming interest can be benefited by a law which increases the price of every thing that they have to buy, and diminishes the price of every thing they have to sell.”

Now, sir, I quote this resolution simply with the view and for no other purpose than to answer a very confident interrogatory of the Senator-where is the Democratic feature of this measure?

But, Mr President, I did not intend to make a speech, and I will not do so. As, however, the Boston Resolutions to which I referred have been handed to me since I alluded to them, I will ask the Clerk to read them. [The Clerk read the resolutions.] I want to say one word (Mr. McD. added) on this subject of the revenue. I had very strong views on that subject, but my desire to see the voté taken led me to refrain from presenting them to the Senate, and so prolonging the discussion. I will take the article of wool, and present a view which seems to be entirely overlooked. He then went on to show that of woollens and cottons, the increase of importation would be very great under the new law, and the revenue be correspondingly augmented. The amount of increase from the destruction of the minimums it was impossible to calculate.

Mr. WEBSTER rose and said: The resolution read cannot be the one referred to by the Senator. I remember that meet

ing in Faneuil Hall. I dare say that may be the regular account of the proceedings. If it be it cannot be the full account, because there was another resolution passed at the same time to which my attention has been frequently since called in the Senate, and which has not been read in that series of resolutions. However, I attended a meeting. Whether I drew the resolutions or assented to them I do not know. Whether I made a speech on the occasion I cannot tell. But I yield it all to the honorable member. Consider me as having drawn every word of these resolutions, and as having urged their adoption upon the people assembled. Suppose that to be any way. The first thing I have got to say now is, that the honorable member from South Carolina will admit that such is the infirmity of our nature that an honest man may change his opinion, and he may change it in two or three as well as in twenty years. I think the most powerful argument ever addressed to the people of the United States against the annexation of Texas was from the Governor of South Carolina; and I think the greatest speech in favor of it was made by the Senator from South Carolina-eandem personam!

Mr. McDUFFIE. Texas was then an independent State and so recognized.

Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, and I quote it for the purpose of showing that an honest man may change his opinion. Well, sir, I believe that the honorable member from South Carolina was, at the time I had the honor of being associated with him in the House of Representatives, a most powerful advocate of internal improvements, and raised his voice in favor of that principle. Mr. McDUFFIE. Not in favor of the exercise-power. Mr. WEBSTER. Was the power then to be barren? Mr. McDUFFIE. Only to make surveys.

Mr. WEBSTER. Why that was the first step. He that can make a survey for improvements, can make improvements. I believe the honorable gentleman also at one time entertained a very favorable opinion of the Bank of the United States, and at another time quite the contrary. Well, then, I stand before the Senate as a man who has found occasion to change his opinions.

Mr. McDUFFIE. I made no unkind imputation.

Mr. WEBSTER. Certainly not. A word, sir, about these resolutions of 1821. I remember the state of things very well. The commercial people of New England, in 1821, were in a considerable state of alarm. They had commerce all over the world. They thought that a policy had been begun at Washington which would interfere with their commerce, and it was of that, that they were afraid. How was this great evil, of which they had become afraid, fastened upon them? By the minimums put upon them by South Carolina to cut off the New England India trade-that's all. The minimum principle, so odious now, was moved in Congress by a most respectable and distinguished member from South Carolina not now living. It was carried by South Carolina against every vote of Massachusetts. I do not think there was a vote of Massachusetts, not one in favor of the measure. Well, then, it is not because the minimum principle is bad in itself. Why, sir, minimum is now spoken of here as if it were a Pawnee Indian, or one of the Camanches that eats up and destroys everybody and every thing. Mr. McDUFFIE. So it does!

Mr. WEBSTER. Well, bad as it is, it was introduced by South Carolina against every vote of Massachusetts. We all now see that the Senator from South Carolina is against it. Well, then, in 1820 or thereabouts, an eminent member of Congress from Pennsylvania introduced a high protective tariff bearing among certain other things especially upon iron. I refer to Mr. BALDWIN, afterwards judge of the Supreme Court. That tariff went to protect every thing out of New England. Well, here was New England between the upper and nether mill-stone; between the South Carolina tariff with its minimums on cottons which cut off the India trade, and the Pennsylvania tariff. I wish the gentleman had dwelt a little more, in his address to the Chair, on the effect of this bill upon the iron and coal of Pennsylvania. But now, sir, I agree, that whether it be owing to change of opinion wrought by circumstances, by a change in the condition of things in the country, or otherwise, I am of opinion that in the present state of things which has existed since 1824, there is no going back from that principle of protection which was established in 182. The law of 1824 did not pass with the consent of Massachusetts. It re

Х

ceived but one vote, I think, in the entire delegation from Massachusetts in both Houses of Congress. As I said the other day, New England had been addicted to commerce. But she supposed the time had come, when she must conform herself to the law of the country and invest her capital-for her labor was her capital—and direct her industry to such pursuits as the country had promised to protect and uphold. Now, sir, if there be any thing inconsistent in that, I admit the inconsistency —take it in the broadest sense and I agree to every word of the resolution of Faneuil Hall of 1821. In the present state of things there is an essential importance-an absolute moral necessity for maintaining those habits, pursuits, business, and employments, into which men entered twenty-two years ago, upon the faith of the declared sentiments and policy of a majority of both Houses of Congress.

OREGON TERRITORY.

August 11, 1848.-Mr. DOUGLAS, of the Committee on Territories, moved to amend the Oregon territorial bill, by extending the line of 36° 30′, agreed upon in the Missouri Compromise, to the Pacific Ocean, and thus settle the slavery question in respect to territories. The vote in the Senate in favor of this amendment was 33, against it 21. Those in the negative were: ALLEN and CORWIN of Ohio, ATHERTON and HALE of New Hampshire, BALDWIN and NILES of Connecticut, BRADBURY and HAMLIN of Maine, BROWN of Illinois, CLARKE and GREENE of Rhode Island, DAVIS and WEBSTER of Massachusetts, DAYTON and WELLS of New Jersey, Dix of New York, DODGE of Iowa, FETCH of Michigan, PHFLPS and UPHAM of Vermont, WALKER of Wisconsin.

In the House, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 121 against, and 82 in favor. Northern members refused to carry out the Missouri Compromise in its application to territories lying west of Missouri. This is an historical fact of great significance in its relation to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

THE WILMOT PROVISO.

To a bill, proposed by Mr. MCKAY, of North Carolina, for making peace with Mexico, introduced into the House of Rep