Chapter LXXXII: Reduction of Duties.--Mr. Clay's Bill (1)

On the 12th of February Mr. Clay asked leave to introduce a bill for the reduction of duties, styled by him a "compromise" measure; and prefaced the question with a speech, of which the following are parts:

"In presenting the modification of the tariff laws which I
am now about to submit, I have two great objects in view. My
first object looks to the tariff. I am compelled to express the
opinion, formed after the most deliberate reflection, and on a
full survey of the whole country, that, whether rightfully or
wrongfully, the tariff stands in imminent danger. If it should
even be preserved during this session, it must fall at the
next session. By what circumstances, and through what causes,
has arisen the necessity for this change in the policy of our
country, I will not pretend now to elucidate. Others there are
who may differ from the impressions which my mind has received
upon this point. Owing, however, to a variety of concurrent
causes, the tariff, as it now exists, is in imminent danger; and
if the system can be preserved beyond the next session, it must
be by some means not now within the reach of human sagacity. The
fall of that policy, sir, would be productive of consequences
calamitous indeed. When I look to the variety of interests which
are involved, to the number of individuals interested, the
amount of capital invested, the value of the buildings erected,
and the whole arrangement of the business for the prosecution
of the various branches of the manufacturing art which have
sprung up under the fostering care of this government, I cannot
contemplate any evil equal to the sudden overthrow of all those
interests. History can produce no parallel to the extent of the
mischief which would be produced by such a disaster. The repeal
of the Edict of Nantes itself was nothing in comparison with
it. That condemned to exile and brought to ruin a great number
of persons. The most respectable portion of the population of
France were condemned to exile and ruin by that measure. But in
my opinion, sir, the sudden repeal of the tariff policy would
bring ruin and destruction on the whole people of this country.
There is no evil, in my opinion, equal to the consequences which
would result from such a catastrophe.

"I believe the American system to be in the greatest danger;
and I believe it can be placed on a better and safer foundation
at this session than at the next. I heard, with surprise,
my friend from Massachusetts say that nothing had occurred
within the last six months to increase its hazard. I entreat
him to review that opinion. Is it correct? Is the issue of
numerous elections, including that of the highest officer of
the government, nothing? Is the explicit recommendation of that
officer, in his message at the opening of the session sustained,
as he is, by a recent triumphant election, nothing? Is his
declaration in his proclamation, that the burdens of the South
ought to be relieved, nothing? Is the introduction of the bill
in the House of Representatives during this session, sanctioned
by the head of the treasury and the administration, prostrating
the greater part of the manufactures of the country, nothing?
Are the increasing discontents, nothing? Is the tendency of
recent events to unite the whole South, nothing? What have we
not witnessed in this chamber? Friends of the administration
bursting all the ties which seemed indissolubly to unite them
to its chief, and, with few exceptions south of the Potomac,
opposing, and vehemently opposing, a favorite measure of that
administration, which three short months ago they contributed
to establish? Let us not deceive ourselves. Now is the time to
adjust the question in a manner satisfactory to both parties.
Put it off until the next session, and the alternative may, and
probably then would be, a speedy and ruinous reduction of the
tariff, or a civil war with the entire South.

"It is well known that the majority of the dominant party is
adverse to the tariff. There are many honorable exceptions, the
senator from New Jersey [Mr. Dickerson] among them. But for the
exertions of the other party, the tariff would have been long
since sacrificed. Now let us look at the composition of the two
branches of Congress at the next session. In this body we lose
three friends of the protective policy, without being sure of
gaining one. Here, judging from the present appearances, we
shall, at the next session, be in the minority. In the House
it is notorious that there is a considerable accession to the
number of the dominant party. How, then, I ask, is the system
to be sustained against numbers, against the whole weight of
the administration, against the united South, and against the
increased impending danger of civil war?

"I have been represented as the father of the system, and I am
charged with an unnatural abandonment of my own offspring. I
have never arrogated to myself any such intimate relation to
it. I have, indeed, cherished it with parental fondness, and my
affection is undiminished. But in what condition do I find this
child? It is in the hands of the Philistines, who would strangle
it. I fly to its rescue, to snatch it from their custody, and
to place it on a bed of security and repose for nine years,
where it may grow and strengthen, and become acceptable to the
whole people. I behold a torch about being applied to a favorite
edifice, and I would save it, if possible, before it was wrapt
in flames, or at least preserve the precious furniture which it
contains."

Mr. Clay further advanced another reason for his bill, and which was a wish to separate the tariff from politics and elections--a wish which admitted their connection--and which, being afterwards interpreted by events, was supposed to be the basis of the coalition with Mr. Calhoun; both of them having tried the virtue of the tariff question in elections, and found it unavailing either to friends or foes. Mr. Clay, its champion, could not become President upon its support. Mr. Calhoun, its antagonist, could not become President upon its opposition. To both it was equally desirable, as an unavailable element in elections, and as a stumbling-block to both in future, that it should be withdrawn for some years from the political arena; and Mr. Clay thus expressed himself in relation to that withdrawal:

"_I wish to see the tariff separated from the politics of the
country, that business men may go to work in security, with some
prospect of stability in our laws, and without every thing being
staked on the issue of elections, as it were on the hazards of
the die._"

Mr. Clay then explained the principle of his bill, which was a series of annual reductions of one tenth per cent. on the value of all duties above twenty per cent. for eight successive years; and after that, the reduction of all the remainder above twenty per centum to that rate by two annual reductions of the excess: so as to complete the reduction to twenty per centum on the value of all imported goods on the 30th day of September, 1842; with a total abolition of duties on about one hundred articles after that time; and with a proviso in favor of the right of Congress, in the event of war with any foreign power to impose such duties as might be necessary to prosecute the war. And this was called a "_compromise_," although there was no stipulation for the permanency of the reduced, and of the abolished duties; and no such stipulation could be made to bind future Congresses; and the only equivalent which the South received from the party of protection, was the stipulated surrender of their principle in the clause which provided that after the said 30th of September, 1842, "_duties should only be laid for raising such revenue as might be necessary for an economical administration of the government_;" an attempt to bind future Congresses, the value of which was seen before the time was out. Mr. Clay proceeded to touch the tender parts of his plan--the number of years the protective policy had to run, and the guaranties for its abandonment at the end of the stipulated protection. On these points he said:

"Viewing it in this light, it appeared that there were eight
years and a half, and nine years and a half, taking the
ultimate time, which would be an efficient protection; the
remaining duties would be withdrawn by a biennial reduction.
The protective principle must be said to be, in some measure,
relinquished at the end of eight years and a half. This period
could not appear unreasonable, and he thought that no member
of the Senate, or any portion of the country, ought to make
the slightest objection. It now remained for him to consider
the other objection--the want of a guaranty to there being an
ulterior continuance of the duties imposed by the bill, on the
expiration of the term which it prescribes. The best guaranties
would be found in the circumstances under which the measure
would be passed. If it were passed by common consent; if it were
passed with the assent of a portion, a considerable portion, of
those who had hitherto directly supported this system, and by a
considerable portion of those who opposed it; if they declared
their satisfaction with the measure, he had no doubt the rate of
duties guarantied would be continued after the expiration of the
term, if the country continued at peace."

Here was a stipulation to continue the protective principle for nine years and a half, and the bill contained no stipulation to abandon it at that time, and consequently no guaranty that it would be abandoned; and certainly the guaranty would have been void if stipulated, as it is not in the power of one Congress to abridge by law the constitutional power of its successors. Mr. Clay, therefore, had recourse to moral guaranties; and found them good, and best in the circumstances in which the bill would be passed, and the common consent with which it was expected to be done--a calculation which found its value, as to the "common consent," before the bill was passed, as to its binding force before the time fixed for its efficacy to begin.

Mr. Forsyth, of Georgia, replied to Mr. Clay, and said:

"The avowed object of the bill would meet with universal
approbation. It was a project to harmonize the people, and it
could have come from no better source than from the gentleman
from Kentucky: for to no one were we more indebted than to him
for the discord and discontent which agitate us. But a few
months ago it was in the power of the gentleman, and those with
whom he acted, to settle this question at once and for ever.
The opportunity was not seized, but he hoped it was not passed.
In the project now offered, he could not see the elements of
success. The time was not auspicious. But fourteen days remained
to the session; and we had better wait the action of the House
on the bill before them, than by taking up this new measure
here, produce a cessation of their action. Was there not danger
that the fourteen days would be exhausted in useless debate?
Why, twenty men, with a sufficiency of breath (for words they
would not want), could annihilate the bill, though a majority
in both Houses were in favor of it. He objected, too, that the
bill was a violation of the constitution, because the Senate
had no power to raise revenue. Two years ago, the same senator
made a proposition, which was rejected on this very ground.
The offer, however, would not be useless; it would be attended
with all the advantages which could follow its discussion here.
We shall see it, and take it into consideration as the offer
of the manufacturers. The other party, as we are called, will
view it as a scheme of diplomacy; not as their _ultimatum_,
but as their first offer. But the bargain was all on one side.
After they are defeated, and can no longer sustain a conflict,
they come to make the best bargain they can. The senator from
Kentucky says, the tariff is in danger; aye, sir, it is at its
last gasp. It has received the immedicable wound; no hellebore
can cure it. He considered the confession of the gentleman to
be of immense importance. Yes, sir, the whole feeling of the
country is opposed to the high protective system. The wily
serpent that crept into our Eden has been touched by the spear
of Ithuriel. The senator is anxious to prevent the ruin which a
sudden abolition of the system will produce. No one desires to
inflict ruin upon the manufacturers; but suppose the Southern
people, having the power to control the subject, should totally
and suddenly abolish the system; what right would those have
to complain who had combined to oppress the South? What has
the tariff led us to already? From one end of the country
to the other, it has produced evils which are worse than a
thousand tariffs. The necessity of appealing now to fraternal
feeling shows that that feeling is not sleeping, but nearly
extinguished. He opposed the introduction of the bill as a
revenue measure, and upon it demanded the yeas and nays: which
were ordered."

The practical, clear-headed, straightforward Gen. Smith, of Maryland, put his finger at once upon the fallacy and insecurity of the whole scheme, and used a word, the point and application of which was more visible afterwards than at the time it was uttered. He said:

"That the bill was no cure at all for the evils complained
of by the South. They wished to try the constitutionality
of protecting duties. In this bill there was nothing but
protection, from beginning to end. We had been told that if the
bill passed with common consent, the system established by it
would not be touched. But he had once been _cheated_ in that
way, and would not be _cheated_ again. In 1816 it was said the
manufacturers would be satisfied with the protection afforded by
the bill of that year; but in a few years after they came and
insisted for more, and got more. After the first four years, an
attempt would be made to repeal all the balance of this bill. He
would go no further than four years in prospective reduction.
The reduction was on some articles too great."

He spoke history, except in the time. The manufacturers retained the benefits of the bill to the end of the protection which it gave them, and then re-established the protective system in more amplitude than ever.

"Mr. Calhoun rose and said, he would make but one or two
observations. Entirely approving of the object for which
this bill was introduced, he should give his vote in favor
of the motion for leave to introduce it. He who loved the
Union must desire to see this agitating question brought to a
termination. Until it should be terminated, we could not expect
the restoration of peace or harmony, or a sound condition of
things, throughout the country. He believed that to the unhappy
divisions which had kept the Northern and Southern States apart
from each other, the present entirely degraded condition of the
country (for entirely degraded he believed it to be) was solely
attributable. The general principles of this bill received his
approbation. He believed that if the present difficulties were
to be adjusted, they must be adjusted on the principles embraced
in the bill, of fixing ad valorem duties, except in the few
cases in the bill to which specific duties were assigned. He
said that it had been his fate to occupy a position as hostile
as any one could, in reference to the protecting policy; but,
if it depended on his will, he would not give his vote for
the prostration of the manufacturing interest. A very large
capital had been invested in manufactures, which had been of
great service to the country; and he would never give his vote
to suddenly withdraw all those duties by which that capital was
sustained in the channel into which it had been directed. But
he would only vote for the ad valorem system of duties, which
he deemed the most beneficial and the most equitable. At this
time, he did not rise to go into a consideration of any of the
details of this bill, as such a course would be premature, and
contrary to the practice of the Senate. There were some of the
provisions which had his entire approbation, and there were some
to which he objected. But he looked upon these minor points of
difference as points in the settlement of which no difficulty
would occur, when gentlemen meet together in that spirit of
mutual compromise which, he doubted not, would be brought into
their deliberations, without at all yielding the constitutional
question as to the right of protection."

This union of Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Clay in the belief of the harmony and brotherly affection which this bill would produce, professing as it did, and bearing on its face the termination of the American system, afforded a strong instance of the fallibility of political opinions. It was only six months before that the dissolution of the Union would be the effect, in the opinion of one of them, of the continuance of the American system--and of its abandonment in the opinion of the other. Now, both agreed that the bill which professed to destroy it would restore peace and harmony to a distracted country. How far Mr. Clay then saw the preservation, and not the destruction, of the American system in the compromise he was making, may be judged by what he said two weeks later, when he declared that he looked forward to a re-action which would restore the protective system at the end of the time.

The first news of Mr. Clay's bill was heard with dismay by the manufacturers. Niles' Register, the most authentic organ and devoted advocate of that class, heralded it thus: "_Mr. Clay's new tariff project will be received like a crash of thunder in the winter season, and some will hardly trust the evidence of their senses on a first examination of it--so radical and sudden is the change of policy proposed because of a combination of circumstances which, in the judgment of Mr. Clay, has rendered such a change necessary. It may be that our favorite systems are all to be destroyed. If so the majority determine--so be it._" The manufacturers flocked in crowds to Washington City--leaving home to stop the bill--arriving at Washington to promote it. Those practical men soon saw that they had gained a reprieve of nine years and a half in the benefits of protection, with a certainty of the re-establishment of the system at the end of that time, from the revulsion which would be made in the revenue--in the abrupt plunge at the end of that time in the scale of duties from a high rate to an ad valorem of twenty per centum; and that leaving one hundred articles free. This nine years and a half reprieve, with the certain chance for the revulsion, they found to be a good escape from the possible passage of Mr. Verplank's bill, or its equivalent, at that session; and its certain passage, if it failed then, at the ensuing session of the new Congress. They found the protective system dead without this reprieve, and now received as a deliverance what had been viewed as a sentence of execution; and having helped the bill through, they went home rejoicing, and more devoted to Mr. Clay than ever.

Mr. Webster had not been consulted, in the formation of this bill, and was strongly opposed to it, as well as naturally dissatisfied at the neglect with which he had been treated. As the ablest champion of the tariff, and the representative of the chief seat of manufactures, he would naturally have been consulted, and made a party, and a leading one, in any scheme of tariff adjustment; on the contrary, the whole concoction of the bill between Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun had been entirely concealed from him. Symptoms of discontent appeared, at times, in their speeches; and, on the night of the 23d, some sharp words passed--composed the next day by their friends: but it was a strange idea of a "compromise," from which the main party was to be excluded in its formation, and bound in its conclusion. And Mr. Webster took an immediate opportunity to show that he had not been consulted, and would not be bound by the arrangement that had been made. He said:

"It is impossible that this proposition of the honorable member
from Kentucky should not excite in the country a very strong
sensation; and, in the relation in which I stand to the subject,
I am anxious at an early moment, to say, that, as far as I
understand the bill, from the gentleman's statement of it, there
are principles in it to which I do not at present see how I can
ever concur. If I understand the plan, the result of it will
be a well-understood surrender of the power of discrimination,
or a stipulation not to use that power, in the laying duties
on imports, after the eight or nine years have expired. This
appears to me to be matter of great moment. I hesitate to be a
party to any such stipulation. The honorable member admits, that
though there will be no positive surrender of the power, there
will be a stipulation not to exercise it; a treaty of peace and
amity, as he says, which no American statesman can, hereafter,
stand up to violate. For one, sir, I am not ready to enter into
the treaty. I propose, so far as depends on me, to leave all our
successors in Congress as free to act as we are ourselves.

"The honorable member from Kentucky says the tariff is in
imminent danger; that, if not destroyed this session, it cannot
hope to survive the next. This may be so, sir. This may be so.
But, if it be so, it is because the American people will not
sanction the tariff; and, if they will not, why, then, sir, it
cannot be sustained at all. I am not quite so despairing as the
honorable member seems to be. I know nothing which has happened,
within the last six or eight months, changing so materially the
prospects of the tariff. I do not despair of the success of an
appeal to the American people, to take a just care of their own
interest, and not to sacrifice those vast interests which have
grown up under the laws of Congress."

There was a significant intimation in these few remarks, that Mr. Webster had not been consulted in the preparation of this bill. He shows that he had no knowledge of it, except from Mr. Clay's statement of its contents, on the floor, for it had not then been read; and the statement made by Mr. Clay was his only means of understanding it. This is the only public intimation which he gave of that exclusion of himself from all knowledge of what Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun were doing; but, on the Sunday after the sharp words between him and Mr. Clay, the fact was fully communicated to me, by a mutual friend, and as an injurious exclusion which Mr. Webster naturally and sensibly felt. On the next day, he delivered his opinions of the bill, in an unusually formal manner--in a set of resolutions, instead of a speech--thus:

"_Resolved_, That the annual revenues of the country ought not
to be allowed to exceed a just estimate of the wants of the
government; and that, as soon as it shall be ascertained, with
reasonable certainty, that the rates of duties on imports, as
established by the act of July, 1832, will yield an excess over
those wants, provision ought to be made for their reduction;
and that, in making this reduction, just regard should be had
to the various interests and opinions of different parts of the
country, so as most effectually to preserve the integrity and
harmony of the Union, and to provide for the common defence, and
promote the general welfare of the whole.

"But, whereas it is certain that the diminution of the rates of
duties on some articles would increase, instead of reducing, the
aggregate amount of revenue on such articles; and whereas, in
regard to such articles as it has been the policy of the country
to protect, a slight reduction on one might produce essential
injury, and even distress, to large classes of the community,
while another might bear a larger reduction without any such
consequences; and whereas, also, there are many articles, the
duties on which might be reduced, or altogether abolished,
without producing any other effect than the reduction of
revenue: Therefore,

"_Resolved_, That, in reducing the rates of duties imposed
on imports, by the act of the 14th of July aforesaid, it is
not wise or judicious to proceed by way of an equal reduction
per centum on all articles; but that, as well the amount as
the time of reduction ought to be fixed, in respect to the
several articles, distinctly, having due regard, in each case,
to the questions whether the proposed reduction will affect
revenue alone, or how far it will operate injuriously on those
domestic manufactures hitherto protected; especially such as
are essential in time of war, and such, also, as have been
established on the faith of existing laws; and, above all, how
far such proposed reduction will affect the rates of wages and
the earnings of American manual labor.

"_Resolved_, That it is unwise and injudicious, in regulating
imposts, to adopt a plan, hitherto equally unknown in the
history of this government, and in the practice of all
enlightened nations, which shall, either immediately or
prospectively, reject all discrimination on articles to be
taxed, whether they be articles of necessity or of luxury, of
general consumption or of limited consumption; and whether they
be or be not such as are manufactured and produced at home, and
which shall confine all duties to one equal rate per centum on
all articles.

"_Resolved_, That, since the people of the United States have
deprived the State governments of all power of fostering
manufactures, however indispensable in peace or in war, or
however important to national independence, by commercial
regulations, or by laying duties on imports, and have
transferred the whole authority to make such regulations, and to
lay such duties, to the Congress of the United States, Congress
cannot surrender or abandon such power, compatibly with its
constitutional duty; and, therefore,

"_Resolved_, That no law ought to be passed on the subject
of imposts, containing any stipulation, express or implied,
or giving any pledge or assurance, direct or indirect, which
shall tend to restrain Congress from the full exercise, at all
times hereafter, of all its constitutional powers, in giving
reasonable protection to American industry, countervailing the
policy of foreign nations, and maintaining the substantial
independence of the United States."

These resolutions brought the sentiments of Mr. Webster, on the tariff and federal revenue, very nearly to the standard recommended by General Jackson, in his annual message; which was a limitation of the revenue to the wants of the government, with incidental protection to essential articles; and this approximation of policy, with that which had already taken place on the doctrine of nullification and its measures, and his present support of the "Force Bill," may have occasioned the exclusion of Mr. Webster from all knowledge of this "compromise." Certain it is, that, with these sentiments on the subject of the tariff and the revenue, and with the decision of the people, in their late elections against the American system, that Mr. Webster and his friends would have acted with the friends of General Jackson and the democratic party, in the ensuing Congress, in reducing the duties in a way to be satisfactory to every reasonable interest; and, above all, to be stable; and to free the country from the agitation of the tariff question, the manufacturers from uncertainty, and the revenue from fluctuations which alternately gave overflowing and empty treasuries. It was a consummation devoutly to be wished; and frustrated by the intervention of the delusive "compromise," concocted out of doors, and in conclave by two senators; and to be carried through Congress by their joint adherents, and by the fears of some and the interests of others.

Mr. Wright, of New-York, saw objections to the bill, which would be insurmountable in other circumstances. He proceeded to state these objections, and the reason which would outweigh them in his mind:

"He thought the reduction too slow for the first eight years,
and vastly too rapid afterwards. Again, he objected to the
inequality of the rule of reduction which had been adopted.
It will be seen, at once, that on articles paying one hundred
per cent. duty, the reduction is dangerously rapid. There was
uniformity in the rule adopted by the bill, as regards its
operation on existing laws. The first object of the bill was to
effect a compromise between the conflicting views of the friends
and the opponents of protection. It purports to extend relief to
Southern interest; and yet it enhances the duty on one of the
most material articles of Southern consumption--negro cloths.
Again, while it increases this duty, it imposes no corresponding
duty on the raw material from which the fabric is made.

"Another objection arose from his mature conviction that the
principle of home valuation was absurd, impracticable, and
of very unequal operation. The reduction on some articles of
prime necessity--iron, for example--was so great and so rapid,
that he was perfectly satisfied that it would stop all further
production before the expiration of eight years. The principle
of discrimination was one of the points introduced into the
discussion; and, as to this, he would say that the bill did
not recognize, after a limited period, the power of Congress
to afford protection by discriminating duties. It provides
protection for a certain length of time, but does not ultimately
recognize the principle of protection. The bill proposes
ultimately to reduce all articles which pay duty to the same
rate of duty. This principle of revenue was entirely unknown to
our laws, and, in his opinion, was an unwarrantable innovation.
Gentlemen advocating the principle and policy of free trade
admit the power of Congress to lay and collect such duties as
are necessary for the purpose of revenue; and to that extent
they will incidentally afford protection to manufactures. He
would, upon all occasions, contend that no more money should
be raised from duties on imports than the government needs;
and this principle he wished now to state in plain terms. He
adverted to the proceedings of the Free Trade Convention to
show that, by a large majority, (120 to 7,) they recognized
the constitutional power of Congress to afford incidental
protection to domestic manufactures. They expressly agreed that
the principle of discrimination was in consonance with the
constitution.

"Still another objection he had to the bill. It proposed on
its face, and, as he thought, directly, to restrict the action
of our successors. We had no power, he contended, to bind our
successors. We might legislate prospectively, and a future
Congress could stop the course of this prospective legislation.
He had, however, no alternative but to vote for the bill, with
all its defects, because it contained some provisions which the
state of the country rendered indispensably necessary."

He then stated the reason which would induce him to vote for the bill notwithstanding these objections. It was found in the attitude of South Carolina, and in the extreme desire which he had to remove all cause of discontent in that State, and to enable her to return to the state of feeling which belonged to an affectionate member of the Union. For that reason he would do what was satisfactory to her, though not agreeable to himself.

While the bill was still depending before the Senate, the bill itself for which the leave was being asked, made its appearance at the door of the chamber, with a right to enter it, in the shape of an act passed by the House, and sent to the Senate for concurrence. This was a new feature in the game, and occasioned the Senate bill to be immediately dropped, and the House bill put in its place; and which, being quickly put to the vote, was passed, 29 to 16.

"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay,
Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Forsyth, Frelinghuysen, Grundy, Hill,
Holmes, Johnston, King, Mangum, Miller, Moore, Maudain,
Poindexter, Rives, Robinson, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tyler,
Waggaman, White, Wright.

"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley,
Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Seymour, Silsbee,
Smith, Tipton, Webster, Wilkins."

And the bill was then called a "compromise," which the dictionaries define to be an "agreement without the intervention of arbitrators;" and so called, it was immediately proclaimed to be sacred and inviolable, as founded on mutual consent, although the only share which the manufacturing States (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont) had in making this "compromise," was to see it sprung upon them without notice, executed upon them as a surprise, and forced upon them by anti-tariff votes, against the strenuous resistance of their senators and representatives in both Houses of Congress.

An incident which attended the discussion of this bill shows the manner in which great measures--especially a bill of many particulars, like the tariff, which affords an opportunity of gratifying small interests--may be worked through a legislative body, even the Senate of the United States, by other reasons than those derived from its merits. The case was this: There were a few small manufactories in Connecticut and some other New England States, of a coarse cloth called, not Kendall green, but Kendall cotton--quite antithetically, as the article was made wholly of wool--of which much was also imported. As it was an article exclusively for the laboring population, the tariff of the preceding session made it virtually free, imposing only a duty of five per centum on the value of the cloth and the same on the wool of which it was made. Now this article was put up in this "compromise" bill which was to reduce duties, to fifty per centum, aggravated by an arbitrary minimum valuation, and by the legerdemain of retaining the five per centum duty on the foreign wool which they used, and which was equivalent to making it free, and reduced to that low rate to harmonize the duty on the raw material and the cloth. General Smith, of Maryland, moved to strike out this duty, so flagrantly in contrast to the professed objects of the bill, and in fraud of the wool duty; and that motion brought out the reason why it was put there--which was, that it was necessary to secure the passage of the bill. Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, said: "_This was an important feature of the bill, in which his constituents had a great interest. Gentlemen from the South had agreed to it; and they were competent to guard their own interest._" Mr. Clay said: "_The provision proposed to be stricken out was an essential part of the compromise, which, if struck out, would destroy the whole._" Mr. Bell of New Hampshire, said: "_The passage of the bill depended upon it. If struck out, he should feel himself compelled to vote against the bill._" So it was admitted by those who knew what they said, that this item had been put into the bill while in a state of concoction out of doors, and as a _douceur_ to conciliate the votes which were to pass it. Thereupon Mr. Benton stood up, and

"Animadverted on the reason which was alleged for this
extraordinary augmentation of duties in a bill which was to
reduce duties. The reason was candidly expressed on this floor.
There were a few small manufactories of these woollens in
Connecticut; and unless these manufactories be protected by an
increase of duties, certain members avow their determination
to vote against the whole bill! This is the secret--no! not
a secret, for it is proclaimed. It was a secret, but is not
now. Two or three little factories in Connecticut must be
protected; and that by imposing an annual tax upon the wearers
of these coarse woollens of four or five times the value of
the fee-simple estate of the factories. Better far, as a point
of economy and justice, to purchase them and burn them. The
whole American system is to be given up in the year 1842;
and why impose an annual tax of near five hundred thousand
dollars, upon the laboring community, to prolong, for a few
years, a few small branches of that system, when the whole bill
has the axe to the root, and nods to its fall? But, said Mr.
B., these manufactories of coarse woollens, to be protected
by this bill, are not even American; they are rather Asiatic
establishments in America; for they get their wool from Asia,
and not from America. The importation of this wool is one
million two hundred and fifty thousand pounds weight; it comes
chiefly from Smyrna, and costs less than eight cents a pound.
It was made free of duty at the last session of Congress, as
an equivalent to these very manufactories for the reduction of
the duty on coarse woollens to five per cent. The two measures
went together, and were, each, a consideration for the other.
Before that time, and by the act of 1828, this coarse wool was
heavily dutied for the benefit of the home wool growers. It was
subjected to a double duty, one of four cents on the pound,
and the other of fifty per cent. on the value. As a measure of
compromise, this double duty was abolished at the last session.
The wool for these factories was admitted duty free, and, as
an equivalent to the community, the woollens made out of the
corresponding kind of wool were admitted at a nominal duty. It
was a bargain, entered into in open Congress, and sealed with
all the forms of law. Now, in six months after the bargain was
made, it is to be broken. The manufacturers are to have the
duty on woollens run up to fifty per cent. for protection, and
are still to receive the foreign wool free of duty. In plain
English, they are to retain the pay which was given them for
reducing the duties on these coarse woollens, and they are to
have the duties restored.

"He said it was contrary to the whole tenor and policy of the
bill, and presented the strange contradiction of multiplying
duties tenfold, upon an article of prime necessity, used
exclusively by the laboring part of the community, while
reducing duties or abolishing them _in toto_, upon every article
used by the rich and luxurious. Silks were to be free; cambrics
and fine linens were to be free; muslins, and casimeres, and
broad cloths were to be reduced; but the coarse woollens, worn
by the laborers of every color and every occupation, of every
sex and of every age, bond or free--these coarse woollens,
necessary to shelter the exposed laborer from cold and damp, are
to be put up tenfold in point of tax, and the cost of procuring
them doubled to the wearer.

"The American value, and not the foreign cost, will be the basis
of computation for the twenty per cent. The difference, when all
is fair, is about thirty-five per cent. in the value; so that an
importation of coarse woollens, costing one million in Europe,
and now to pay five per cent. on that cost, will be valued, if
all is fair, at one million three hundred and fifty thousand
dollars; and the twenty per cent. will be calculated on that
sum, and will give two hundred and seventy thousand dollars,
instead of two hundred thousand dollars, for the quantum of the
tax. It will be near sixfold, instead of four-fold, and that if
all is fair; but if there are gross errors or gross frauds in
the valuation, as every human being knows there must be, the
real tax may be far above sixfold. On this very floor, and in
this very debate, we hear it computed, by way of recommending
this bill to the manufacturers, that the twenty per cent. on
the statute book will exceed thirty in the custom-house.

"Mr. B. took a view of the circumstances which had attended the
duties on these coarse woollens since he had been in Congress.
Every act had discriminated in favor of these goods, because
they were used by the poor and the laborer. The act of 1824
fixed the duties upon them at a rate one third less than on
other woollens; the act of 1828 fixed it at upwards of one half
less; the act of 1832 fixed it nine tenths less. All these
discriminations in favor of coarse woollens were made upon the
avowed principle of favoring the laborers, bond and free,--the
slave which works the field for his master, the mariner, the
miner, the steamboat hand, the worker in stone and wood, and
every out-door occupation. It was intended by the framers of
all these acts, and especially by the supporters of the act of
1832, that this class of our population, so meritorious from
their daily labor, so much overlooked in the operations of the
government, because of their little weight in the political
scale, should at least receive one boon from Congress--they
should receive their working clothes free of tax. This was the
intention of successive Congresses; it was the performance of
this Congress in its act of the last session; and now, in six
short months since this boon was granted, before the act had
gone into effect, the very week before the act was to go into
effect, the boon so lately granted, is to be snatched away, and
the day laborer taxed higher than ever; taxed fifty per cent.
upon his working clothes! while gentlemen and ladies are to have
silks and cambrics, and fine linen, free of any tax at all!

"In allusion to the alleged competency of the South to guard its
own interest, as averred by Mr. Foot, Mr. Benton said that was a
species of ability not confined to the South, but existent also
in the North--whether indigenous or exotic he could not say--but
certainly existent there, at least in some of the small States;
and active when duties were to be raised on Kendal cotton cloth,
and the wool of which it was made to remain free."

The motion of General Smith was rejected, of course, and by the same vote which passed the bill, no one of those giving way an inch of ground in the House who had promised out of doors to stand by the bill. Another incident to which the discussion of this bill gave rise, and the memory of which is necessary to the understanding of the times, was the character of "_protection_" which Mr. Clay openly claimed for it; and the peremptory manner in which he and his friends vindicated that claim in open Senate, and to the face of Mr. Calhoun. The circumstances were these: Mr. Forsyth objected to the leave asked by Mr. Clay to introduce his bill, because it was a revenue bill, the origination of which under the constitution exclusively belonged to the House of Representatives, the immediate representative of the people. And this gave rise to an episodical debate, in which Mr. Clay said: "_The main object of the bill is not revenue, but protection._"--In answer to several senators who said the bill was an abandonment of the protective principle, Mr. Clay said: "_The language of the bill authorized no such construction, and that no one would be justified in inferring that there was to be an abandonment of the system of protection._"--And Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, a supporter of the bill, said: "_The government cannot be kept together if the principle of protection were to be discarded in our policy; and declared that he would pause before he surrendered that principle, even to save the Union._"--Mr. Webster said: "_The bill is brought forward by the distinguished senator from Kentucky, who professes to have renounced none of his former opinions as to the constitutionality and expediency of protection._"--And Mr. Clay said further: "_The bill assumes, as a basis, adequate protection for nine years, and less (protection) beyond that term. The friends of protection say to their opponents, we are willing to take a lease of nine years, with the long chapter of accidents beyond that period, including the chance of war, the restoration of concord, and along with it a conviction common to all, of the utility of protection; and in consideration of it, if, in 1842 none of these contingencies shall have been realized, we are willing to submit, as long as Congress may think proper, with a maximum of twenty per centum_," &c.--"_He avowed his object in framing the bill was to secure that protection to manufactures which every one foresaw must otherwise soon be swept away._" So that the bill was declared _to be one of protection_ (_and upon sufficient data_), upon a lease of nine years and a half, with many chances for converting the lease into a fee simple at the end of its run; which, in fact, was done; but with such excess of protection as to produce a revulsion, and another tariff catastrophe in 1846. The continuance of protection was claimed in argument by Mr. Clay and his friends throughout the discussion, but here it was made a point on which the fate of the bill depended, and on which enough of its friends to defeat it declared they would not support it except as a protective measure. Mr. Calhoun in other parts of the debate had declared the bill to be an abandonment of protection; but at this critical point, when such a denial from him would have been the instant death warrant of the bill, he said nothing. His desire for its passage must have been overpowering when he could hear such declarations without repeating his denial.

On the main point, that of the constitutionality of originating the bill in the Senate, Mr. Webster spoke the law of Parliament when he said:

"It was purely a question of privilege, and the decision of
it belonged alone to the other House. The Senate, by the
constitution, could not originate bills for raising revenue. It
was of no consequence whether the rate of duty were increased
or decreased; if it was a money bill it belonged to the House
to originate it. In the House there was a Committee of Ways
and Means organized expressly for such objects. There was no
such committee in the Senate. The constitutional provision was
taken from the practice of the British Parliament, whose usages
were well known to the framers of the constitution, with the
modification that the Senate might alter and amend money bills,
which was denied by the House of Commons to the Lords. This
subject belongs exclusively to the House of Representatives. The
attempt to evade the question, by contending that the present
bill was intended for protection and not for revenue, afforded
no relief, for it was protection by means of revenue. It was
not the less a money bill from its object being protection.
After 1842 this bill would raise the revenue, or it would not
be raised by existing laws. He was altogether opposed to the
provisions of this bill; but this objection was one which
belonged to the House of Representatives."

Another incident which illustrates the vice and tyranny of this outside concoction of measures between chiefs, to be supported in the House by their adherents as they fix it, occurred in the progress of this bill. Mr. Benton, perceiving that there was no corresponding reduction of drawback provided for on the exportation of the manufactured article made out of an imported material on which duty was to be reduced, and supposing it to have been an oversight in the framing of the bill, moved an amendment to that effect; and meeting resistance, stood up, and said:

"His motion did not extend to the general system of drawbacks,
but only to those special cases in which the exporter was
authorized to draw from the treasury the amount of money which
he had paid into it on the importation of the materials which
he had manufactured. The amount of drawback to be allowed in
every case had been adjusted to the amount of duty paid, and as
all these duties were to be periodically reduced by the bill,
it would follow, as a regular consequence, that the drawback
should undergo equal reductions at the same time. Mr. B. would
illustrate his motion by stating a single case--the case of
refined sugar. The drawback payable on this sugar was five
cents a pound. These five cents rested upon a duty of three
cents, now payable on the importation of foreign brown sugar.
It was ascertained that it required nearly two pounds of brown
sugar to make a pound of refined sugar, and five cents was
held to be the amount of duty paid on the quantity of brown
sugar which made the pound of refined sugar. It was simply a
reimbursement of what he had paid. By this bill the duty of
foreign brown sugar will be reduced immediately to two and a
half cents a pound, and afterwards will be periodically reduced
until the year 1842, when it will be but six-tenths of a cent,
very little more than one-sixth of the duty when five cents
the pound were allowed for a drawback. Now, if the drawback is
not reduced in proportion to the reduction of the duty on the
raw sugar, two very injurious consequences will result to the
public: first, that a large sum of money will be annually taken
out of the treasury in gratuitous bounties to sugar refiners;
and next, that the consumers of refined sugar will have to pay
more for American refined sugar than foreigners will; for the
refiners getting a bounty of five cents a pound on all that is
exported, will export all, unless the American consumer will
pay the bounty also. Mr. B. could not undertake to say how much
money would be drawn from the treasury, as a mere bounty, if
this amendment did not prevail. It must, however, be great. The
drawback was now frequently a hundred thousand dollars a year,
and great frauds were committed to obtain it. Frauds to the
amount of forty thousand dollars a year had been detected, and
this while the inducement was small and inconsiderable; but, as
fast as that inducement swells from year to year, the temptation
to commit frauds must increase; and the amount drawn by fraud,
added to that drawn by the letter of the law, must be enormous.
Mr. B. did not think it necessary to illustrate his motion by
further examples, but said there were other cases which would be
as strong as that of refined sugar; and justice to the public
required all to be checked at once, by adopting the amendment he
had offered."

This amendment was lost, although its necessity was self-evident, and supported by Mr. Calhoun's vote; but Mr. Clay was inexorable, and would allow of no amendment which was not offered by friends of the bill: a qualification which usually attends all this class of outside legislation. In the end, I saw the amendment adopted, as it regarded refined sugars, after it began to take hundreds of thousands per annum from the treasury, and was hastening on to millions per annum. The vote on its rejection in the compromise bill, was:

"YEAS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Calhoun, Dallas, Dickerson,
Dudley, Forsyth, Johnson, Kane, King, Rives, Robinson, Seymour,
Tomlinson, Webster, White, Wilkins, Wright--18.

"NAYS.--Messrs. Bell, Bibb, Black, Clay, Clayton, Ewing, Foot,
Grundy, Hendricks, Holmes, Knight, Mangum, Miller, Moore,
Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss, Robbins, Silsbee, Smith, Sprague,
Tipton, Troup, Tyler.--24."