At Niblo's Saloon, New York, March 15, 1838. On Treasury Note Bill, Reply to Calhoun, March 30, 1840. Reception at Boston, Sept. 30, 1842. Albany Mass Meeting, Aug. 27, 1844. Whig Convention, Philadelphia, Oct. 1, 1844. Convention at Valley Forge, Oct. 3, 1844. Against the Walker Tariff, U. S. Senate, July 25, 27, 1846. Speech before Election, Faneuil Hall, Oct. 24, 1848. The object of this pamphlet is to group Webster's utterances on the tariff, for the convenient study and reference of the American people, to most of whom they will probably come with almost the force of a revelation and to all with the strength of prophecy. The compiler's only claim to merit is in allowing Webster to speak for himself, rather than in attempting to speak for him, and in bringing together for the first time specimen excerpts from his great speeches during the twenty years of his greatest intellectual vigor and political influence, upon a subject as much in issue to-day as it was then and to the understanding of which nothing that is recent contributes more than these luminous passages from the past. Protection, the Original American Policy. Webster maintained, in opposition to Calhoun, that protection is the Original American Policy. The passage is extended, but foundational. It is part of his reply to Calhoun, "The Constitution Not a Compact," in the United States Senate, Feb. 16, 1833. "Sir, the world will scarcely believe that this whole controversy, and all the desperate measures which its support requires, have no other foundation than a difference of opinion upon a provision of the Constitution, between a majority of the people of South Carolina on one side, and a vast majority of the whole people of the United States on the other." "It was incredible and inconceivable, that South Carolina should thus plunge headlong into a resistance to the laws on a matter of opinion, and on a question in which the preponderance of opinion, both of the present day and of all past time, was so over whelmingly against her." "Sir, what will the civilized world say, what will posterity say, when they learn that similar laws have existed from the very foundation of the Government; that for thirty years, the power was never questioned; and that no State in the Union has more freely and unequivocally admitted it than South Carolina herself?" The Motive of Protection Does Not Vitiate the Tariff. "The great object of all these laws is, unquestionably, revenue. If there were no occasion for revenue, the laws would not have been passed; and it is notorious that almost the entire revenue of the country is derived from them. And, as yet, we have collected none too much revenue. The treasury has not been more reduced for many years than it is at the present moment. All that South Carolina can say is, that in passing the laws which she now undertakes to nullify, particular imported articles were taxed, from a regard to the protection of certain articles of domestic manufacture, higher than they would have been, had no such regard been entertained. And she insists that, according to the Constitution, no such discrimination can be allowed; that duties should be laid for revenue, and revenue only; and that it is unlawful to have reference, in any case, to protection. In other words, she denies the power of Discrimination. She does not, and cannot, complain of excessive taxation; on the contrary, she professes to be willing to pay any amount for revenue, merely as revenue; and up to the present moment there is no surplus of revenue. Her grievance, then, that plain and palpable violation of the Constitution which she insists has taken place, is simply the exercise of the power of Discrimination. Now, Sir, is the exercise of this power of discrimination plainly and palpably unconstitutional? “I have already said that the power to lay duties is given by the Constitution in broad and general terms. There is also conferred on Congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in another distinct provision. Is it clear and palpable, sir,— can any man say it is a case beyond doubt that under these two powers Congress may not justly discriminate, in laying duties, for the purpose of countervailing the policy of foreign nations, or of favoring our own home productions? Sir, what ought to conclude this question forever, as it would seem to me, is, that the regulation of commerce and the imposition of duties are, in all commercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised for this very end. That undeniable truth ought to settle the question; because the Constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well-known language, as using it in its well known sense. But it is equally undeniable that it has been, from the very first, fully believed that this power of discrimination was conferred on Congress; and the Constitution was itself recommended, urged upon the people, and enthusiastically insisted on in some of the states, for that very reason. Not that at that time the country was extensively engaged in manufactures, especially of the kinds now existing. But the trades and crafts of the seaport towns, the business of the artisans and manual laborers, those employments the work in which supplies so great a portion of the daily wants of all classes — all these looked to the new Constitution as a source of relief from the severe distress which followed the war. It would, sir, be unpardonable, at so late an hour, to go into details on this point, but the truth is as I have stated. The papers of the day, the resolutions of public meetings, the debates in the conventions, all that we open our eyes upon in the history of the times prove it." Webster shows that Calhoun misapprehended two incidents claimed to support his view; one was that "a power to protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted." Webster shows that the proposition Calhoun had in mind was "to establish public institutions, rewards and immunities' for the promotion of manufactures and other interests. The convention," adds Webster, "supposed it had done enough-at any rate it had done all it had intended - when it had given to Congress, in general terms, the power to lay imposts and the power to regulate trade." Webster says that Calhoun also misunderstood Mr. Martin, that he objected before the Maryland legislature that the Constitution did not contain protection; Webster shows that Martin's complaint was only that the power of protection had been taken away from the separate States. How the First Tariff (1789) Was Passed. "I find," continues Webster, "that, having provided for the administration of the necessary oaths, the very first measure proposed for consideration is the laying of imposts; and in the very first committee of the whole into which the House of Representatives ever resolved itself on this, its earliest subject, and in this, its very first debate, the duty of so laying the imposts as to encourage manufactures, was advanced and enlarged upon, by almosť every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. The first gentleman who suggests this as the clear duty of Congress, and as an object necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitzsimons, of Pennsylvania; the second, Mr. White, of Virginia; the third, Mr. Tucker, of South Carolina. "But the great leader, Sir, on this occasion, was Mr. Madison. Was he likely to know the intentions of the convention and the people? Was he likely to understand the Constitution? "At the second sitting of the committee, Mr. Madison explained his own opinions of the duty of Congress, fully and explicitly. I must not detain you, Sir, with more than a few short extracts from these opinions, but they are such as are clear, intelligible, and decisive. "The states,' says he, 'that are most advanced in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their particular interest attended to, in some degree. While these states retained the power of making regulations of trade they had the power to cherish such institutions. By adopting the present Constitution, they have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands; they must have done this with an expectation that those interests would not be neglected here." " Attitude of South Carolina. "In the same debate, Sir, Mr. Burk, from South Carolina, supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encouraging its growth on the strong lands of South Carolina. Cotton' he said, 'was also in contemplation among them, and if good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed.' Afterwards, Sir, the cotton seed was obtained, its culture was protected, and it did succeed. Mr. Smith, a very distinguished member from the same state, observed: It has been said, and justly, that the states which adopted this Constitution expected its administration would be conducted with a favorable hand. The manufacturing states wished the encouragement of manufactures; the maritime states, the encouragement of ship. building; and the agricultural states, the encouragement of agriculture.'' "And how, Sir, did this debate terminate? What law was passed? There it stands, Sir, among the statutes, the second law in the book. It has a preamble, and that preamble expressly recites that the duties which it imposes are laid for the support of Government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures.' Until, Sir, this early legislation, thus coeval with the Constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be explained away, no man can doubt of the meaning of that instrument in this respect. "Mr. President, this power of discrimination, thus admitted, avowed, and practised upon, in the first revenue act, has never been denied or doubted until within a few years past. It was not at all doubted in 1816, when it became necessary to adjust the revenue to a state of peace. Certainly, South Carolina did not doubt it. The tariff of 1816 was introduced, carried through, and established, under the lead of South Carolina. Even the minimum policy is of South Carolina origin. The honorable gentleman himself supported, and ably supported, the tariff of 1816. He has informed us, Sir, that his speech on that occasion was sudden and off-hand, he being called up by the request of a friend. I am sure the gentleman so remembers ،، it, and that it was so; but there is, nevertheless, much method, arrangement, and clear exposition in that extempore speech. It is very able, very, very much to the point, and very decisive. And in another speech, delivered two months earlier, the honorable gentleman had declared that a certain encouragement ought to be extended, at least to our woolen and cotton manufactures: Sir, it is no answer to say that the tariff of 1816 was a revenue. .bill. So are they all revenue bills. The point is, and the truth is, that the tariff of 1816, like the rest, did discriminate; it did lay duties for protection. Look to the case of coarse cottons, under the minimum calculation; the duty on these was sixty to eighty per cent. Something besides revenue, certainly, was intended in this; and, in fact, the law cut up our whole commerce with India in that article. It is, Sir, only within a few years that Carolina has denied the constitutionality of these protective laws. The gentleman himself has narrated to us the true history of her proceedings on this point. He says that after the passing of the law of 1828, despairing then of being able to abolish the system of protection, political men went forth among the people, and set up the doctrine that the system was unconstitutional. And the people,' says the honorable gentleman, received the doctrine.' This I believe is true, Sir. The people did then receive the doctrine; they had never entertained it before. Down to that period, the constitutionality of these laws had been no more doubted in South Carolina, than elsewhere. And I suspect it is true, Sir, and I deem it a great misfortune, that to the present moment, a great portion of the people of the state have never yet seen more than one side of the argument. I believe that thousands of honest men are involved in scenes now passing, led away by one-sided views of the question, and following their leaders by the impulses of an unlimited confidence. Depend upon it, Sir, if we can avoid the shock of arms, a day for reconsideration and reflection will come; truth and reason will act with their accustomed force, and the public opinion of South Carolina will be restored to its usual Constitutional and patriotic tone. |