SENATE.]

The Tariff.

[JULY 5, 1862.

consider it a favor, and be particularly obliged to him if
he would make it a little lighter.

The question was then taken, and the amendment was
rejected--yeas 22, nays 22, as follows:
YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Clay, Clayton, Dallas,
Dickerson, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks,
Holmes, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour,
Silsbee, Sprague, Tipton, Waggaman, Wilkins.--22.

crease of duty from three and a half to four cents per square yard on the article of cotton bagging, but without intending to support the original proposition. He could not give his sanction to a system of protection, bounties, and monopolies, intended to benefit one branch of industry at the sacrifice of other great interests of the country. Such legislation was repugnant to the genius of a free people, and to the principles of our free constitution. Besides, said he, this particular item of protection is un- NAYS.-Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Chambers, Dudley, necessary; it was not called for by the manufacturers of Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Johnston, Kane, cotton bagging in 1828, when the duty of five cents the King, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Rosquare yard was impose 1, but it was gratuitously inserted binson, Smith, Tazewell, Tyler, White.--22. in the bill at that time to give additional strength to the The VICE PRESIDENT added his vote in the negative. combination by whom it was passed. These manufac- The next was an amendment inserting on "felts or turers have never wanted a ready and a profitable mar-hat bodies made wholly or in part of wool, thirty cents ket for the article, to the full extent of their ability each."

to produce it; and such, in his opinion, would be the Mr. KNIGHT said this is a new article of importation. case if no duty whatever, except for revenue purposes, It is not to be found in any of our tariff laws. The history was imposed. The price would depend more on the of it is this. A few years ago, a journeyman hatter indemand and the supply, than on our legislation. An vented a machine for inaking felts or hat bodies--simple in honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. HOLMES] had said its operations, and admirably adapted to the business it was that unmanufactured cotton had been protected until it intended to perform. It entirely superseded the old way had expelled all foreign cotton from the country; from of making this part of the hat. It had so completely suc which he infers that equal protection ought to be extend- ceeded as to reduce the price of the article to about fifty ed to the covering of the bale which contained it. Sir, per cent. of its former cost. He had regularly patented said Mr. P., this idea is not novel; it has been repeated on his invention, and was proceeding peaceably in his busi this floor and elsewhere, as a justification of the onerousness, satisfactorily to every body, and profitably to himself. imposts on the great articles of consumption imported Some person, to me unknown, took a copy of his machine from Europe, for the use of the agricultural and other in the Patent Office, or from some other place, and translaboring classes of the community. I take this occasion mitted it to Europe, and somewhere in the neighborhood to correct the error. The duty of three cents the pound of Hamburg set up the business of making hat bodies of on raw cotton was imposed in 1790, when that staple was Saxony wool, and shipping them to this country. When not produced to any extent in the United States. It presented to the custom-house, they were not found in the was an article extensively imported into the country, and laws regulating the duties, and were estimated according the duty was a part of our revenue system. It did not to the provisions of the law embracing non-enumerated then, and it never had, at any subsequent period, operat-articles. This was not all; there was an imposition on the ed to protect the agriculturists against foreign competi- officers of the customs by the valuation of the articletion, in the production of cotton. If the advocates of this they were estimated to be worth fifteen cents each, and injurious and iniquitous system of taxation would relieve the duty assessed accordingly. the people from the burdens which are now imposed on them, he pledged himself to strike from this bill the nominal duty of three cents on unmanufactured cotton. The planter relied on his own enterprise and industry, and not on the spoils of his countrymen in other sections of the Union. Sir, said Mr. P., permit me to trace the rise and progress of the culture of cotton in this country. In 1794, when Mr. Jay made the treaty with England, he did not know that the article of cotton was grown in the United States, as will appear by his correspondence with the British minister.

The CHAIR here reminded Mr. P. that the question being on the increase of duty on cotton bagging from three and a half to four cents, did not admit of the latitude of debate which the honorable Senator was taking.

Mr. P. then said he yielded to the suggestion, and took his seat with the declaration that he should resist the amendment, and afterwards vote against the bill imposing three and a half cents the square yard on Scotch bagging. The amendment was rejected.

Now, sir, the best Saxony lamb's wool, of which this article for fine hats is made, costs in England from four shillings to four and sixpence sterling per pound, and it takes about one pound of wool to four hats. The duty on the wool would amount to forty-four cents, and the duty on the manufactured article, made of the same wool, is nine cents. To prevent this fraud upon the patented rights of the inventor of this machine, as well as the fraud on the revenue, is the object of this amendment. By the fraudulent introduction of these hats or felts, as they are called, the consumer is not benefited; they are not sold ata less price than actual cost-they can be manufactured here as cheap as they can be made in Europe or any where else. The whole labor is done by machinery, and, if we make the importer pay the amount of duties we pay on Saxony wool, we can compete with the world. The sum proposed as duty is but about the amount the finest Saxo ny wool will pay when imported.

Mr. TYLER objected to it.

striking out thirty and inserting eighteen.

Mr. MARCY thought the amendment unnecessary. Mr. KNIGHT said this is an article which my constitu- clause was clearly embraced in the bill, by which all ma ents have as deep an interest in as any people of the mufactures of wool were charged fifty per cent., and by Union; if any tax is paid on it, it is paid by them. It is another all unmanufactured articles of the same material true, as the Senator from Kentucky has stated, that the were to pay the same as the manufactured. The object cotton bagging is not paid for by the grower of cotton-- of the amendment would be embraced by either the one it is sold by the pound with the cotton, and is an article of or the other. He would move, however, to amend, by profit to him. I have heard some of my constituents say that the bagging purchased with the cotton has cost them about thirty cents the yard, when the bag itself would cost only about twenty cents. I will not say any thing more on this subject, it having been so fully explained by the Senator from Kentucky. My chief object in rising was to say to that Senator, that when he shall return to the manufacture of cotton bagging, my constituents would

Mr. SMITH had a letter from his hatter on the subject. Hat bodies were imported, made of Saxony wool, and the only fur put on the hats was in the covering by the manu facturer here. In England the duty on Saxony wool was only two cents, and, in consequence of the high duty on the wool here, the American hatter is injured.

Mr. TYLER said, if he understood the matter as ex

The VICE PRESIDENT added his vote against the amendment.

The next amendment considered was in the 177th line, inserting "except cordage tarred and untarred," the object of which amendment is to retain the present specific rate of duty on those articles.

Mr. DUDLEY requested a letter from a manufacturer of cordage in New York might be read. It stated that the effect would be injurious if the clause in the bill from the House were to become a law.

[JULY 5, 1832.

Mr. KNIGHT insisted on having the yeas and nays on this amendment, they having been previously ordered on all.

The question was then taken by yeas and nays, and the amendment was adopted--yeas 30, nays 3.

The next amendment provided for striking out the follow. ing words from the bill contained in lines 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, and 210: "all articles not herein specified e ther as free or as liable to a different duty, and which, by the existing laws, pay an ad valorem duty higher than fifteen per centum, to pay an ad valorem duty of fifteen per centum, from and after the said third day of March, one thou. sand eight hundred and thirty-three."

Mr. HAYNE wished to have the effect of this amendment distinctly understood. As the act came from the other House, all manufactures of hemp would be subject to no more than twenty-five per cent. If it were designed Mr. HAYNE hoped this clause of the amendment to except cordage from this, the duties under the existing might not prevail. The committee had looked at all the tariff would revert on this article, and by that the duty articles taxed by the present tar ff with a microscopic eye, amounted to eighty per cent. on tarred cordage, and to and had provided duties for them all; but, under the fear eighty-eight on untarred. He would submit that twenty-that there might be some articles which their astuteness five per cent. was thought too low, if eighty or eighty-had not discovered, and which might, under the bill, be eight per cent. was not far too high. He hoped gentle-brought in so low as fifteen per cent., had prepared their men would not impose a duty so extravagant.

amendment to prevent this possible reduction. He trust ed that they would permit this part of the bill to remain, and any articles which their ingenuity and research might possibly have omitted, to come in at the moderate rate of duty of fifteen per cent.

Mr. SMITH said the manufactures of cordage could not exist if only protected by a duty of twenty-five per cent. They paid forty dollars a ton, of duty, on hemp, and it was impossible they could thus compete with the foreign market. Mr. SILSBEE spoke in favor of the amendment. After some remarks from Mr. DICKERSON, who deMr. FOOT said it must be evident, unless this amend-nominated this clause of the bill a broad net to catch all ment prevailed, the manufacture of cordage must be en- the articles omitted by it, the question was taken on strik tirely abandoned in this country. The manufacture was ng out the clause, and carried-yeas 24, nays 21, as ful barely getting on, and could not bear any additional burden. lows: Mr. SMITH said we can no longer export the cordage of our own country, it being taxed so high in the article of hemp.

The amendment was carried--yeas 26, nays 16, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Jolinston, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, W.lk.ns.-26.

NAYS.-Messrs. Benton, B.bb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Robinson, Tazewell, Tyler.--16.

The amendment in the 190th 1ne was to insert musical instruments at a rate of duty of thirty percent. ad valorem. Mr. DICKERSON said that this was a manufacture that deserved protection; they were made to a very high degree of perfection in the United States. By the bill from the House, they would come in as art.cles made of wood, at a rate of duty too low to protect the manufacture.

This amendment was, after a short discuss.on, agreed to--yeas 25, nays 16, as follows:

YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Chambers, Clay, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hendricks, Holmes, Knight, Naudain, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Sprague, Tipton, Tomlinson, Waggaman, Wilkins.--24.

NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Bibb, Brown, Buckner, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hll, Kane, Kang, Mangum, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Robinson, South, Tazewell, Tyler.-21.

The amendment striking out from the list of duty free articles, epaulets of gold and silver, was next considered. Mr. MILLER observed that this was a matter of some importance to the militia of the United States, who served without pay, and were at considerable expense in equip ping and uniforming themselves. This amendment would bear hard on these officers, and he hoped it would not be adopted.

Mr. DICKERSON, in answer to an inquiry as to the ex tent of the manufacture, and the amount of the present duty, said that the article was made in the United States, and paid a duty on the importation of twelve per cent This was but a very moderate protection, and of no man

YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Buckner, Chambers, Clay, Clay. ton, Dallas, D.ckerson, Dudley, Ewing, Foot, Freling-ner of consequence to the consumer. huysen, Holmes, Knight, Naudain, Prent.ss, Robb.ns, Robinson, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague, Tomlinson. Waggaman, Wilkins.--25.

NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Brown, Ellis, Forsyth, Grundy, Hayne, Hill, Kane, Marcy, Miller, Moore, Poindexter, Tazewell, Tipton, Tyler, White.--16.

The amendment in the 197th line was as follows:

At the end of the line, insert "until the 3d day of March, eighteen hundred and thirty-four; and from and after that day one-half of those rates respectively; and on all other wines, other than those of France, one-half of their present rates of duty respectively, from and after the day last aforesaid."

The amendiment was rejected--yeas 17, nays 28. The amendment in the twelfth line of the third section was to insert ind go among the art cles free of duty.

Mr. DICKERSON said the object of the amei.dment was to strike out "indigo" from the list of articles exempt from duty, in order to insert it in the second section of the bill, in the clause enumerating various articles at fifteen per cent. This protection was considered neces sary, as indigo had become an article of home produce.

Mr. BENTON said he had a letter from a gentleman much information in South Carolina, which showed the extent in which this article was raised and produced in the South. The letter stated that from forty to fifty thousand The bill reads, on the wines of France, namely, red pounds of indigo were raised, within the year, by a single wines, in casks, six cents a gallon; white wines, in casks, parish in South Carol na; that it was frequently shipped ten cents a gallon; and French wines, of all sorts, in bottles, twenty-two cents a gallon.

Mr. HAYNE said he thought the yeas and nays need not be taken on this amendment; it was a clear revenue measure, and no one would, he presumed, object to it.

to Cincinnati and to New York, where it was found to qual any imported from abroad. Mr. B. said he had read this letter for the purpose of contradicting the error that prevailed, that ind go was not produced in this coun try. The fuct was, that England, when she possessed

JULY 6, 1832.]

The Tariff

[SENATE.

colonies in this country, had spared no expense in encou- serve the British interest. He alluded to the practice of raging the cultivation of indigo in the South, thinking, the British Government to defeat our advances in manuwisely, that if they were to have domestic manufacture facturing, by meeting us with specific duties, and instanced within themselves, they ought not to be dependent on a that on glass. Under such circumstances, our woollens foreign country for the chief material in the dye of that required more protection than was given them by the bill, manufacture. He [Mr. B.] was of opinion that when and, therefore, the committee had proposed this amendwool and other articles belonging to our domestic manu- ment. He was of opinion, that whilst the change profactures were taxed, a duty should be laid on indigo in posed would be beneficial to the manufacturers, it gave a proportion. considerable boon to the South, by the low duty imposed on the cheap coarse cloths.

Mr. HAYNE said that, although the letter, which had been read, had come from a gentleman in his State, it was Mr. SMITH said he did not rise to enter into any argu merely in reply to information that had been asked, and ment on this question, but to explain a difference as to was not indicative of the feeling of the State on the sub-facts between the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. DICKERject. South Carolina would not consent to the principle sox] and himself. That gentleman had taken the year of any duty by way of protection. That indigo was 1824, when we passed the act raising the duty on wool, raised in the South, was there no secret; every house- and said that the Engl sh duty of sixteen cents per pound w.fe could raise what she herself required. All that his was repealed in consequence of our act. This was not State would ask for was a fair revenue system; a system so. Mr. S. recollected well, that when the bill of 1824 built on revenue alone, and on just and equitable terms. was under consideration, he rose in his place, and stated, His object was to disclaim, on the part of his State, any at the very time we were about raising our duty on wool, protection on this or any other art cle of her produce. the English were about reducing theirs; and that the South Carolina would disdain to ask for any protection course pursued by Great Britain would operate more to whatever: if this duty was intended as a boon to her, she did our disadvantage than any advantage we could expect not seek it. But to a fair revenue she would not dissent. to gain by increase of duty. What was the answer of Mr. DICKERSON said it had not been proposed by the gentlemen at that time? Why, that Great Britain only committee as a boon to the South. Indigo was becoming an article of considerable home produce, and therefore it was thought necessary to protect it, as well as the other productions of the country, by a duty of fifteen per cent. Mr. MILLER made some remarks, which were not distinctly audible.

The question was then taken on the amendment, when it was negatived with consent, in order again to make the intended substitute in the proper place.

It being past six o'clock, the Senate adjourned.

FRIDAY, JULY 6.
THE TARIFF.

held out this threat in terrorem, to prevent us from raising our daty. The gentleman from New Jersey contended that the duty of 1824 was trifling--a mere modicum. Why, sir, it was not so considered then. Gentlemen who favored the measure at that time told a different story. By the act of 1816, the duty was twenty-five per cent., to become the next year twenty, and so on; but, by the act of 1824, the duty was increased to thirty-three and a third; and this was considered by all at that t.me as a very high rate of duty.

With respect to the glass spoken of by the Senator, he could not agree with him. He [Mr. S.] was at one time an importer of glass to a considerable amount, and the drawback to the amount of the excise in England was always given them. So it was with regard to cal coes. They gave us back, said he, the full amount of the excise on that article. So also in Ireland with respect to nens. There was an excise of a penny-halfpenny a yard on this last article, which has since been repealed, and now it came to us at a penny-halfpenny dearer.

In the

The Senate resumed the tariff bill. After disposing of various amendments without discussion, the last amend ment of the committee was taken up, as follows: After the word “part," insert "the duties following, that is to say, such other manufactures of wool, or of which wool is a component part, the actual value of which at the place from whence imported shall not exceed fifty cents Mr. HOLMES adverted to the pol cy followed by Great the square yard, shall be deemed to have cost fifty cents Britain in 1819, in raising the duty on foreign wool one the square yard, and pay a duty thereon of thirty-five per penny sterling to six pence. It had so continued till 1825, centum. And all such other manufactures of wool, or of when it was repealed and put at the old rate. which wool is a component part, the actual value of which, 96th No. of the Edinburgh Review, there was an excelat the place from whence imported shall exceed fifty lent article, which showed the fallacy of not allowing the cents the square yard, and shall not exceed two dollars duty on woollens and on wool to go hand in hand; of and fifty cents the square yard, shall be deemed to have not reducing the one, and at the same time reducing the cost two dollars and fifty cents the square yard, and] pay other. But it was found by a committee of investigation, a duty thereon of thinty-five per centum. And on all such that the manufacturers could not go on without having other manufactures of wool, or of which wool is a com- foreign fine wool to mix with their coarse, and without ponent part, the actual value of which at the places the one they could not consume the other. whence imported shall exceed two dollars and fifty cents Mr. DICKERSON sad he recollected they had been the square yard, there shall be levied a duty of thirty-five told, in 1824, by the Senator from Maryland, that, if they per centum ad valorem.” increased the protection on wool, the British would re.

Mr. DICKERSON, in supporting this amendment, reduce the duty on their importations of the article, and demarked that since wool was protected, the woollen manu- feat the protection. This he thought, at the time, highly factures should be equally so. The protection of the probable. If we had been content to take their woollens manufactured article from wool would act beneficially to as before, they would not have reduced their duty. They agriculturists themselves--the growers of wool; for the were watching the progress of our legislation, and began consequence was, that the more the manufacture was in- this measure to defeat us. They would have much precreased, the more wool would be consumed. The wool-ferred to keep up their duty, if it could be sent here and len trade was of the greatest importance to us, and on it the tax levied on us. But he did not believe they would might be said to hang the interests of the agriculturists in have put down their duty, but for the consideration that a paramount degree. The necessity of this part of our they were determined to supply us in spite of our legis industry was of the last importance to the country; and lation. when it was proposed by gentlemen to do away with its

Very little was done for wool in 1824. In 1823, the protection, he could not but say that they would so sub-duty on wool amounted to about $120,000; and we paid a

SENATE.]

The Turiff.

[JULY 6, 1832.

tax to Great Britain in that year to that amount. With woollens, from fifty cents to $2 50, shall be deemed to respect to glass, the excise in 1825 was reduced to forty-have cost $2 50; thereby doubling the duty on the coarse five shillings, and the drawback was put at sixty-five; so articles. It was true that, under the former law, the duty that there is, at this moment, twenty shillings which they was forty-five per cent.; but, under the proposed nominal pay for the sake of supplying us with that article.

rate of duty of thirty-five per cent. on the minimum of Mr. CLAY advocated the amendment, and stated that $2 50, the duty will in fact amount to eighty-seven cents it made the bill much better for the South than it was per yard; and the entire class of articles between fifty when it came from the House. He read from an invoice, cents and $1 50 will pay a duty ranging from sixty to one dated August, 1831, an account of the charges on a lot hundred and seventy per cent. Mr. H. viewed this enor of glassware sent to Greenock. The original value of the mous increase of duty to amount to a prohibition of the glass was £7 10s. 9d. sterling. The duties and charges coarser articles; and the real object of the amendment unwere £10 188. 8d.; making the cost £18 98. 3d. The questionably was to give an entire monopoly to the manu articles then sold for £28 5s. Dishes, produced by Ame- facture of cloths worth from fifty cents to $2 50. But rican ingenuity for one dollar and a half, sold for up-negro cloth was to be excepted. New negro cloths, Mr. wards of eight dollars. This glass was produced by com- H. said, were plains, not made in the United States at pression. He gave this fact, to show the nature and ex-all, or, if made, to a very limited extent. That those tent of English liberality and kindness, and the sincerity of coarse cloths were consumed at the North as well as at the profession of Great Britain in reference to free trade. the South, the gentleman was mistaken in supposing. He then adverted to the character and operation of There was no coarse article consumed at the North. But this amendment, showing that the local minimum was the entire importation of such articles was to a very merely nominal, and that the next minimum was the only limited extent; not exceeding about $500,000. And here real and substantial one. The idea of protecting articles in he must remark, that one of the strongest objections to which the South are most interested, is abandoned. The the proposed minimums arose from the difference in the second minimum, he showed, was more favorable to the amount of the articles on which it would operate, com South than the bill from the House. Its operation would pared with the amount to be admitted as a law duty. By be principally on the middle classes in the North and the a statement of the treasury he held in his hand, it would East; so that the burden and the benefit would go together. be seen that the whole amount of the importation of negro The spec fic duty he regarded as preferable to the ad cloths and other coarse articles was only $600,000; while valorem, as it prevented fraud. And, in reference to the of those costing from $1 to $2 20, the importations, in minimum system, he referred to the prosperity of the 1830, were $2,373,791, and last year exceeded $4,000,000. cotton manufactories, to show its efficacy. That branch So that while on a very limited importation the duties are of our manufacture had grown up under the protection to be reduced, they are to be enormously increased on of a single minimum. He read a communication from an articles amounting to between two and four millions. The officer of the customs in New York, of great intelligence higher priced articles of woollen cloths, costing above and worth, in which he showed the advantage of the $2 50, amounted only to $80,000, and were made, to a square yard and minimum system. Under the ad valo- very limited extent, in the United States: so much so, rem duty, one package in twenty is examined, while, in the specific duty system, every package is examined. If fraud can exist, then, under the specific duty system, what frauds may not be expected under the ad valorem system? He then adverted to the operation of the original bill, in order to show its inefficiency. He laid it down as indisputable that adequate protection could alone be obtained by a duty on the raw material and foreign fabric operat- to increase, very largely, the duties on the great mass of ing together. It was h's wish to guard the farmer and the manufacturer against the influence of foreign legislation. He congratulated the Senate on the evidence which had been exhibited, that the protective principle was still to be preserved, and concluded by asserting that the amendment had been introduced from a feeling of kindness to the South. The coarse article is abandoned to the South, and lays the burden on the middle classes in the North and the East.

that thirty-five per cent. was deemed by the gentlemen themselves an adequate protection; for the gentleman had declared that he would not go one cent below an adequate protection. He should be gla ́, therefore, to know where, in all this, was the yielding to the South that the gentleman talked so much of. He had explicitly declared that he would yield nothing of the protection, and is seeking woollens. One word more as to the minimums. What are they? Why, they declare that an article which is worth no moře, and actually cost only fifty cents, shall be deemed and taken to have cost $2 50, and pay a duty accordingly. Could any thing be more unfair, more unjust, or more extravagant? If you apply this principle to the people of the United States in the way of direct taxation, it would not be submitted to for a moment. How would it answer to impose an income tax, and then say that every Mr. HAYNE said his desire was to bring this question man's income, no matter what it was, shall be deemed to to the test; and he should therefore move to strike out, in be $1,000, and that he shall pay a tax accordingly; or that the 14th, 15th, and 16th lines, the words "be deemed to his still shall be taxed fifty cents per gallon, but shail be have cost two dollars and fifty cents the square yard," to deemed to contain one hundred gallons, and taxed at that try the question on the minimums at once. His object rate? The minimum provision was a more cunning contriv was to bring before the Senate this principle of minimums ance by which to conceal the truth from the people; which the Senator from Kentucky called the most effi-making them pay, as in the case before us, a tax, say of cient feature in the bill, and which the Senate would at one hundred and fifty per cent., and, at the same time, once perceive would greatly increase the duty. In the bill telling them that they were only to pay thirty-five per cent. that came from the Secretary of the Treasury, these duties But the gentleman from Kentucky says that the miniranged from five to thirty per cent.; in the bill from the mums are to guard against a false valuation. Why, have House they ranged from five to fifty per cent., without you now no means of ascertaining the true value of im having minimumis in either; and in the amendment it is ported articles? If the gentleman is right, why have ad proposed that the duty shall be calculated on every yard valorem duties at all? Surely the laws now provide, or the of cloth costing from fifty cents to $2 50, as if it cost $2 50. Treasury Department can devise a system by which the The first objection to this clause was, that it was a great custom-houses can always know the actual value of the enlargement of the existing tariff. The present law pro- articles entered. If this cannot be done, you must adopt vides that all woollen goods costing fifty cents, and under minimums or specific duties throughout your whole sys one dollar, shall be deemed to have cost one dollar, and pay tem. But he would leave this branch of the subject. It duty accordingly. This amendment provides that all required no argument to show that ad valorems were the