Chapter LXXXII: Reduction of Duties.--Mr. Clay's Bill (2)

But the protective feature of the bill, which sat hardest upon the Southern members, and, at one time, seemed to put an end to the "compromise," was a proposition, by Mr. Clay, to substitute home valuations for foreign on imported goods; and on which home valuation, the duty was to be computed. This was no part of the bill concocted by Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun; and, when offered, evidently took the latter gentleman by surprise, who pronounced it unconstitutional, unequal, and unjust; averred the objections to the proposition to be insurmountable; and declared that, if adopted, would compel him to vote against the whole bill. On the other hand, Mr. Clayton and others, declared the adoption of the amendment to be indispensable; and boldly made known their determination to sacrifice the bill, if it was not adopted. A brief and sharp debate took place, in the course of which Mr. Calhoun declared his opinions to remain unaltered, and Mr. Clayton moved to lay the bill upon the table. Its fate seemed, at that time, to be sealed; and certainly would have been, if the vote on its passage had then been taken; but an adjournment was moved, and carried; and, on the next day, and after further debate, and the question on Mr. Clay's proposition about to be taken, Mr. Calhoun declared that it had become necessary for him to determine whether he would vote for or against it; said he would vote for it, otherwise the bill would be lost. He then called upon the reporters in the gallery to notice well what he said, as he intended his declaration to be part of the proceedings: and that he voted upon the conditions: first, that no valuation should be adopted, which would make the duties unequal in different parts; and secondly, that the duties themselves should not become an element in the valuation. The practical sense of General Smith immediately exposed the futility of these conditions, which were looked upon, on all sides, as a mere salvo for an inevitable vote, extorted from him by the exigencies of his position; and several senators reminded him that his intentions and motives could have no effect upon the law, which would be executed according to its own words. The following is the debate on this point, very curious in itself, even in the outside view it gives of the manner of affecting great national legislation; and much more so in the inside view of the manner of passing this particular measure, so lauded in its day; and to understand which, the outside view must first be seen. It appears thus, in the prepared debates:

"Mr. Clay now rose to propose the amendment, of which he had
previously given notice. The object was, that, after the period
prescribed by the bill, all duties should thereafter be assessed
on a valuation made at the port in which the goods are first
imported, and under 'such regulations as may be prescribed by
law.' Mr. C. said it would be seen, by this amendment, that, in
place of having a foreign valuation, it was intended to have
a home one. It was believed by the friends of the protective
system, that such a regulation was necessary. It was believed
by many of the friends of the system, that, after the period
of nine and a half years, the most of our manufactures will be
sufficiently grown to be able to support themselves under a duty
of twenty per cent., if properly laid; but that, under a system
of foreign valuation, such would not be the case. They say that
it would be more detrimental to their interests than the lowest
scale of duties that could be imposed; and you propose to fix a
standard of duties. They are willing to take you at your word,
provided you regulate this in a way to do them justice.

"Mr. Smith opposed the amendment, on the ground that it would
be an increase of duties; that it had been tried before; that
it would be impracticable, unequal, unjust, and productive of
confusion, inasmuch as imported goods were constantly varying
in value, and were well known to be, at all times, cheaper in
New-York than in the commercial cities south of it. This would
have the effect of drawing all the trade of the United States to
New-York.

"Mr. Clay said he did not think it expedient, in deciding this
question, to go forward five or six years, and make that an
obstacle to the passage of a great national measure, which
is not to go into operation until after that period. The
honorable senator from Maryland said that the measure would be
impracticable. Well, sir, if so, it will not be adopted. We
do not adopt it now, said Mr. C.; we only adopt the principle,
leaving it to future legislation to adjust the details. Besides,
it would be the restoration of an ancient principle, known since
the foundation of the government. It was but at the last session
that the discriminating duty on goods coming from this side,
and beyond the Cape of Good Hope, ten per cent. on one, and
twenty per cent. on the other, was repealed. On what principle
was it, said he, that this discrimination ever prevailed? On
the principle of the home value. Were it not for the fraudulent
invoices which every gentleman in this country was familiar
with, he would not urge the amendment; but it was to detect and
prevent these frauds that he looked upon the insertion of the
clause as essentially necessary.

"Mr. Smith replied that he had not said that the measure
was impracticable. He only intended to say that it would be
inconvenient and unjust. Neither did he say that it would be
adopted by a future Congress; but he said, if the principle
was adopted now, it would be an entering wedge that might lead
to the adoption of the measure. We all recollect, said Mr.
S., that appropriations were made for surveys for internal
improvements; and that these operated as entering wedges, and
led to appropriations for roads and canals. The adoption of the
principle contended for, by the senator from Kentucky, would
not, in his (Mr. S.'s) opinion, prevent frauds in the invoices.
That very principle was the foundation of all the frauds on the
revenue of France and Spain, where the duties were assessed
according to the value of the goods in the ports where entered.
He again said that the effect of the amendment would be to draw
the principal commerce of the country to the great city of
New-York, where goods were cheaper.

"Mr. Forsyth understood, from what had fallen from the senator
from Kentucky, that this was a vital question, and on it
depended the success of this measure of conciliation and
compromise, which was said to settle the distracted condition of
the country. In one respect, it was said to be a vital question;
and the next was, it was useful; and a strange contradiction
followed: that the fate of this measure, to unite the jarrings
of brother with brother, depended on the adoption of a principle
which might or might not be adopted. He considered the amendment
wrong in principle, because it would be both unequal and unjust
in its operation, and because it would raise the revenue: as the
duties would be assessed, not only on the value of the goods
at the place whence imported, but on their value at the place
of importation. He would, however, vote for the bill, even if
the amendment were incorporated in it, provided he had the
assurances, from the proper quarter, that it would effect the
conciliation and compromise it was intended for.

"Mr. Clay had brought forward this measure, with the hope that,
in the course of its discussion, it would ultimately assume
such a shape as to reconcile all parties to its adoption, and
tend to end the agitation of this unsettled question. If there
be any member of this Congress (Mr. C. said), who says that he
will take this bill now for as much as it is worth, and that he
will, at the next Congress, again open the question, for the
purpose of getting a better bill, of bringing down the tariff to
a lower standard, without considering it as a final measure of
compromise and conciliation, calculated also to give stability
to a man of business, the bill, in his eyes, would lose all its
value, and he should be constrained to vote against it.

"It was for the sake of conciliation, of nine years of peace,
to give tranquility to a disturbed and agitated country, that
he had, even at this late period of the session, introduced
this measure, which, his respect for the other branch of the
legislature, now sitting in that building, and who had a
measure, looking to the same end, before them, had prevented
him from bringing forward at an earlier period. But, when he
had seen the session wearing away, without the prospect of any
action in that other body, he felt himself compelled to come
forward, though contrary to his wishes, and the advice of some
of his best friends, with whom he had acted in the most perilous
times.

"Mr. Calhoun said, he regretted, exceedingly, that the senator
from Kentucky had felt it his duty to move the amendment.
According to his present impressions, the objections to it
were insurmountable; and, unless these were removed, he should
be compelled to vote against the whole bill, should the
amendment be adopted. The measure proposed was, in his opinion,
unconstitutional. The constitution expressly provided that no
preference should be given, by any regulation of commerce, to
the ports of one State over those of another; and this would
be the effect of adopting the amendment. Thus, great injustice
and inequality must necessarily result from it; for the price
of goods being cheaper in the Northern than in the Southern
cities, a home valuation would give to the former a preference
in the payment of duties. Again, the price of goods being higher
at New Orleans and Charleston than at New-York, the freight
and insurance also being higher, together with the increased
expenses of a sickly climate, would give such advantages in the
amount of duties to the Northern city, as to draw to it much of
the trade of the Southern ones. In his view of the subject, this
was not all. He was not merchant enough to say what would be
the extent of duties under this system of home valuation; but,
as he understood it, they must, of consequence, be progressive.
For instance, an article is brought into New-York, value there
100 dollars. Twenty per cent. on that would raise the value
of the article to one hundred and twenty dollars, on which
value a duty of twenty per cent. would be assessed at the next
importation, and so on. It would, therefore, be impossible to
say to what extent the duties would run up. He regretted the
more that the senator from Kentucky had felt it his duty to
offer this amendment, as he was willing to leave the matter to
the decision of a future Congress, though he did not see how
they could get over the insuperable constitutional objections he
had glanced at. Mr. C. appealed to the senator from Kentucky,
whether, with these views, he would press his amendment, when he
had eight or nine years in advance before it could take effect.
He understood the argument of the senator from Kentucky to be an
admission that the amendment was not now absolutely necessary.
With respect to the apprehension of frauds on the revenue, Mr.
C. said that every future Congress would have the strongest
disposition to guard against them. The very reduction of duties,
he said, would have that effect; it would strike at the root of
the evil. Mr. C. said he agreed with the senator from Kentucky,
that this bill will be the final effort at conciliation and
compromise; and he, for one, was not disposed, if it passed, to
violate it by future legislation.

"Mr. Clayton said that he could not vote for this bill without
this amendment, nor would he admit any idea of an abandonment
of the protective system; while he was willing to pass this
measure, as one of concession from the stronger to the weaker
party, he never could agree that twenty per cent. was adequate
protection to our domestic manufactures. He had been anxious to
do something to relieve South Carolina from her present perilous
position; though he had never been driven by the taunts of
Southern gentlemen to do that, which he now did, for the sake
of conciliation. I vote for this bill, said Mr. C., only on the
ground that it may save South Carolina from herself.

"Here Mr. C. yielded the floor to Mr. Calhoun, who said he hoped
the gentleman would not touch that question. He entreated him
to believe that South Carolina had no fears for herself. The
noble and disinterested attitude she had assumed was intended
for the whole nation, while it was also calculated to relieve
herself, as well as them, from oppressive legislation. It was
not for them to consider the condition of South Carolina only,
in passing on a measure of this importance.

"Mr. Clayton resumed. Sir, said he, I must be permitted to
explain, in my own way, the reasons which will govern me
in the vote I am about to give. As I said before, I never
have permitted the fears of losing the protective system, as
expressed by the senator from Georgia, when he taunted us with
the majority that they would have in the next Congress, when
they would get a better bill, to influence my opinion upon this
occasion. That we have been driven by our fears into this act of
concession, I will not admit. Sir, I tell gentlemen that they
may never get such another offer as the present; for, though
they may think otherwise, I do not believe that the people of
this country will ever be brought to consent to the abandonment
of the protective system.

"Does any man believe that fifty per cent. is an adequate
protection on woollens? No, sir; the protection is brought
down to twenty per cent.; and when gentlemen come to me and
say that this is a compromise, I answer, with my friend from
Maine, that I will not vote for it, unless you will give me
the fair twenty per cent.; and this cannot be done without
adopting the principle of a home valuation. I do not vote for
this bill because I think it better than the tariff of 1832, nor
because I fear nullification or secession; but from a motive of
concession, yielding my own opinions. But if Southern gentlemen
will not accept this measure in the spirit for which it was
tendered, I have no reason to vote for it. I voted, said Mr.
C., against the bill of '32, for the very reason that Southern
gentlemen declared that it was no concession; and I may vote
against this for the same reasons. I thought it bad policy to
pass the bill of '32. I thought it a bad bargain, and I think so
now. I have no fear of nullification or secession; I am not to
be intimidated by threats of Southern gentlemen, that they will
get a better bill at the next session. "Rebellion made young
Harry Percy's spurs grow cold." I will vote for this measure as
one of conciliation and compromise; but if the clause of the
senator from Kentucky is not inserted, I shall be compelled to
vote against it. The protective system never can be abandoned;
and I, for one, will not now, or at any time, admit the idea.

"Mr. Dallas was opposed to the proposition from the committee,
and agreed with Mr. Calhoun. He would state briefly his
objection to the proposition of the committee. Although he
was from a State strongly disposed to maintain the protective
policy, he labored under an impression, that if any thing could
be done to conciliate the Southern States, it was his duty to go
for a measure for that purpose; but he should not go beyond it.
He could do nothing in this way, as representing his particular
district of the country, but only for the general good. He
could not agree to incorporate in the bill any principle which
he thought erroneous or improper. He would sanction nothing in
the bill as an abandonment of the principle of protection. Mr.
D. then made a few remarks on home and foreign valuation, to
show the ground of his objections to the amendment of Mr. Clay,
though it did not prevent his strong desire to compromise and
conciliation.

"Mr. Clay thought it was premature to agitate now the details
of a legislation which might take place nine years hence. The
senator from South Carolina had objected to the amendment on
constitutional grounds. He thought he could satisfy him, and
every senator, that there was no objection from the constitution.

"He asked if it was probable that a valuation in Liverpool
could escape a constitutional objection, if a home valuation
were unconstitutional? There was a distinction in the foreign
value, and in the thing valued. An invoice might be made of
articles at one price in one port of England, and in another
port at another price. The price, too, must vary with the time.
But all this could not affect the rule. There was a distinction
which gentlemen did not observe, between the value and the
rule of valuation; one of these might vary, while the other
continued always the same. The rule was uniform with regard to
direct taxation; yet the value of houses and lands of the same
quality are very different in different places. One mode of home
valuation was, to give the government, or its officers, the
right to make the valuation after the one which the importer had
given. It would prevent fraud, and the rule would not violate
the constitution. It was an error that it was unconstitutional;
the constitution said nothing about it. It was absurd that
all values must be established in foreign countries; no other
country on earth should assume the right of judging. Objections
had been made to leaving the business of valuation in the hands
of a few executive officers; but the objections were at least
equally great to leaving it in the hands of foreigners. He
thought there was nothing in the constitutional objection, and
hoped the measure would not be embarrassed by such objections.

"Mr. Calhoun said that he listened with great care to the
remarks of the gentleman from Kentucky, and other gentlemen, who
had advocated the same side, in hopes of having his objection
to the mode of valuation proposed in the amendment removed; but
he must say, that the difficulties he first expressed still
remained. Passing over what seemed to him to be a constitutional
objection, he would direct his observation to what appeared
to him to be its unequal operation. If by the home valuation
be meant the foreign price, with the addition of freight,
insurance, and other expenses at the port of destination, it is
manifest that as these are unequal between the several ports
in the Union--for instance, between the ports New-York and New
Orleans--the duty must also be unequal in the same degree, if
laid on value thus estimated. But if, by the home valuation be
meant the prices current at the place of importation, then,
in addition to the inequality already stated, there would
have to be added the additional inequality resulting from the
different rates of profits, and other circumstances, which must
necessarily render prices very unequal in the several ports of
this widely-extended country. There would, in the same view,
be another and a stronger objection, which he alluded to in
his former remarks, which remained unanswered--that the duties
themselves constitute part of the elements of the current prices
of the imported articles; and that, to impose a duty on a
valuation ascertained by the current prices, would be to impose,
in reality, a duty upon a duty, and must necessarily produce
that increased progression in duties, which he had already
attempted to illustrate.

"He knew it had been stated, in reply, that a system which
would produce such absurd results could not be contemplated;
that Congress, under the power of regulating, reserved in
the amendment, would adopt some mode that would obviate
these objections; and, if none such could be devised, that
the provisions of the amendment would be simply useless. His
difficulty was not removed by the answer to the objection. He
was at a loss to understand what mode could be devised free
from objection; and, as he wished to be candid and explicit,
he felt the difficulty, as an honest man, to assent to a
general measure, which, in all the modifications under which
he had viewed it, was objectionable. He again repeated, that
he regretted the amendment had been offered, as he felt a
solicitude that the present controversy should be honorably and
fairly terminated. It was not his wish that there should be a
feeling of victory on either side. But, in thus expressing his
solicitude for an adjustment, he was not governed by motives
derived from the attitude which South Carolina occupied, and
which the senator from Delaware stated to influence him. He
wished that senator, as well as all others, to understand that
that gallant and patriotic State was far from considering her
situation as one requiring sympathy, and was equally far from
desiring that any adjustment of this question should take place
with the view of relieving her, or with any other motive than
a regard to the general interests of the country. So far from
requiring commiseration, she regarded her position with very
opposite light, as one of high responsibility, and exposing her
to no inconsiderable danger; but a position voluntarily and
firmly assumed, with a full view of consequences, and which she
was determined to maintain till the oppression under which she
and the other Southern States were suffering was removed.

"In wishing, then, to see a termination to the present state of
things, he turned not his eyes to South Carolina, but to the
general interests of the country. He did not believe it was
possible to maintain our institutions and our liberty, under
the continuance of the controversy which had for so long a time
distracted us, and brought into conflict the two great sections
of the country. He was in the last stage of madness who did not
see, if not terminated, that this admirable system of ours,
reared by the wisdom and virtue of our ancestors--virtue, he
feared, which had fled forever--would fall under its shocks. It
was to arrest this catastrophe, if possible, by restoring peace
and harmony to the Union, that governed him in desiring to see
an adjustment of the question.

"Mr. Clayton said, this point had been discussed in the
committee; and it was because this amendment was not adopted
that he had withheld his assent from the bill. They had now
but seven business days of this session remaining; and it
would require the greatest unanimity, both in that body and
in the other House, to pass any bill on this subject. Were
gentlemen coming from the opposite extremes of the Union, and
representing opposite interests, to agree to combine together,
there would hardly be time to pass this bill into a law; yet if
he saw that it could be done, he would gladly go on with the
consideration of the bill, and with the determination to do all
that could be done. The honorable member from South Carolina had
found insuperable obstacles where he (Mr. C.) had found none. On
their part, if they agreed to this bill, it would only be for
the sake of conciliation; if South Carolina would not accept the
measure in that light, then their motive for arrangement was
at an end. He (Mr. C.) apprehended, however, that good might
result from bringing the proposition forward at that time. It
would be placed before the view of the people, who would have
time to reflect and make up their minds upon it against the
meeting of the next Congress. He did not hold any man as pledged
by their action at this time. If the arrangement was found to
be a proper one, the next Congress might adopt it. But, for
the reasons he had already stated, he had little hope that any
bill would be passed at this session; and, to go on debating
it, day after day, would only have the effect of defeating the
many private bills and other business which were waiting the
action of Congress. He would therefore propose to lay the bill
for the present on the table; if it were found, at a future
period, before the expiration of the session, that there was
a prospect of overcoming the difficulties which now presented
themselves, and of acting upon it, the bill might be again taken
up. If no other gentleman wished to make any observations on the
amendment, he would move to lay the bill on the table.

"Mr. Bibb requested the senator from Delaware to withdraw
his motion, whilst he (Mr. B.) offered an amendment to the
amendment, having for its object to get rid of that interminable
series of duties of which gentlemen had spoken.

"Mr. Clayton withdrew his motion.

"Mr. Bibb proceeded to say, that his design was to obviate the
objection of the great increase that would arise from a system
of home valuation. He hoped that something satisfactory would
be done this session yet. He should vote for every respectable
proposition calculated to settle the difficulty. He hoped there
would be corresponding concessions on both sides; he wished much
for the harmony of the country. It was well known that he (Mr.
B.) was opposed to any tariff system other than one for revenue,
and such incidental protection as that might afford. His hope
was to strike out a middle course; otherwise, he would concur in
the motion that had been made by the senator from Delaware [Mr.
Clayton]. Mr. B. then submitted his amendment, to insert the
words 'before payment of,' &c.

"Mr. Clay was opposed to the amendment, and he hoped his worthy
colleague would withdraw it. If one amendment were offered and
debated, another, and another would follow; and thus, the
remaining time would be wasted. To fix any precise system would
be extremely difficult at present. He only wished the principle
to be adopted.

"Mr. Bibb acceded to the wish of the senator from Kentucky, and
withdrew his amendment accordingly.

"Mr. Tyler was opposed to the principle of this home valuation.
The duties would be taken into consideration in making the
valuations; and thus, after going down hill for nine and a half
years, we would as suddenly rise up again to prohibition. He
complained that there were not merchants enough on this floor
from the South; and, in this respect, the Northern States had
the advantage. But satisfy me, said Mr. T., that the views of
the senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] are not correct,
and I shall vote for the proposition.

"Mr. Moore said he would move an amendment which he hoped would
meet the views of the gentlemen on the other side; it was to
this effect:

"_Provided_, That no valuation be adopted that will operate
unequally in different ports of the United States.

"Mr. Calhoun also wished that the amendment would prevail,
though he felt it would be ineffectual to counteract the
inequality of the system. But he would raise no cavilling
objections; he wished to act in perfect good faith; and he only
wished to see what could be done.

"Mr. Moore said he had but two motives in offering the amendment
to the amendment of the senator. The first was, to get rid of
the constitutional objections to the amendment of the senator
from Kentucky; and the second was, to do justice to those he
had the honor to represent. The honorable gentleman said that
Mobile and New Orleans would not pay higher duties, because the
goods imported there would be of more value; and this was the
very reason, Mr. M. contended, why the duties would be higher.
Did not every one see that if the same article was valued in
New-York at one hundred dollars, and in Mobile at one hundred
and thirty-five dollars, the duty of twenty per cent. would be
higher at the latter place? He had nothing but the spirit of
compromise in view, and hoped gentlemen would meet him in the
same spirit. He would now propose, with the permission of the
senator from Maine, to vary his motion, and offer a substitute
in exact conformity with the language of the constitution.
This proposition being admitted by general consent, Mr. Moore
modified his amendment accordingly. (It was an affirmation of
the constitution, that all duties should be uniform, &c).

"Mr. Forsyth supported the amendment of the senator from
Alabama, and hoped it would meet the approbation of the Senate.
It would get rid of all difficulty about words. No one, he
presumed, wished to violate the constitution; and if the
measure of the senator from Kentucky was consistent with the
constitution, it would prevail; if not, it would not be adopted.

"Mr. Holmes moved an adjournment.

"Mr. Moore asked for the yeas and nays on the motion to adjourn,
and they were accordingly ordered, when the question was taken
and decided in the affirmative--Yeas 22, nays 19, as follows:

"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Clayton, Dallas, Dickerson, Ewing,
Foot, Frelinghuysen, Holmes, Johnston, Kane, Knight, Naudain,
Prentiss, Robbins, Robinson, Silsbee, Smith, Tipton, Tomlinson,
Waggaman, Webster, Wilkins.--22.

"NAYS.--Messrs. Bibb, Black, Buckner, Calhoun, Clay, Dudley,
Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, King, Miller, Moore, Poindexter,
Sprague, Rives, Troup, Tyler, White, Wright.--19.

"The Senate then, at half-past four o'clock, adjourned.

"_Friday, February 22._

"Mr. Smith (of Md.) said, the motion to amend by the word
'uniform' was unnecessary. That was provided for by the
constitution. 'All duties must be uniform.' An addition to
the cost of goods of forty, fifty, or sixty per cent. would
be uniform, but would not prevent fraud, nor the certainty of
great inequality in the valuation in the several ports. The
value of goods at New Orleans particularly, and at almost every
other port, will be higher than at New-York. I have not said
that such mode was unconstitutional, nor have I said that it
was impracticable; few things are so. But I have said, and do
now say, that the mode is open to fraud, and more so than the
present. At present the merchant enters his goods, and swears
to the truth of his invoice. One package in every five or ten
is sent to the public warehouse, and there carefully examined
by two appraisers on oath. If they find fraud, or suspect
fraud, then all the goods belonging to such merchants are sent
to the appraisers; and if frauds be discovered, the goods are
forfeited. No American merchant has ever been convicted of such
fraud. Foreigners have even been severely punished by loss of
their property. The laws are good and sufficiently safe as
they now stand on our statutes. I wish no stronger; we know
the one, we are ignorant how the other will work. Such a mode
of valuation is unknown to any nation except Spain, where the
valuation is arbitrary; and the goods are valued agreeably to
the amount of the bribe given. This is perfectly understood and
practised. It is in the nature of such mode of valuation to
be arbitrary. No rule can be established that will make such
mode uniform throughout the Union, and some of the small ports
will value low to bring business to their towns. A scene of
connivance and injustice will take place that no law can prevent.

"The merchant will be put to great inconvenience by the mode
proposed. All his goods must be sent to the public warehouses,
and there opened piece by piece; by which process they will
sustain essential injury. The goods will be detained from the
owners for a week or a month, or still more, unless you have one
or two hundred appraisers in New-York, and proportionately in
other ports; thus increasing patronage; and with such a host,
can we expect either uniformity or equality in the valuation?
All will not be honest, and the Spanish mode will be adopted.
One set of appraisers, who value low, will have a priority. In
fact, if this mode should ever be adopted, it will cause great
discontent, and must soon be changed. As all understand the
cause to be to flatter the manufacturers with a plan which they
think will be beneficial to them, but which, we all know, can
never be realized, it is deception on its face, as is almost the
whole of the bill now under our consideration.

"Remember, Mr. President, that the senators from Kentucky and
South Carolina [Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun], have declared this
bill (if it should become a law), to be permanent, and that no
honorable man who shall vote for it can ever attempt a change;
yet, sir, the pressure against it will be such at the next
session that Congress will be compelled to revise it; and as the
storm may then have passed over Congress, a new Congress, with
better feelings, will be able to act with more deliberation, and
may pass a law that will be generally approved. Nearly all agree
that this bill is a bad bill. A similar opinion prevailed on the
passage of the tariff of 1828, and yet it passed, and caused
all our present danger and difficulties. All admit that the act
of 1828, as it stands on our statutes, is constitutional. But
the senator [Mr. Calhoun] has said that it is unconstitutional,
because of the motive under which it passed; and he said that
that motive was protection to the manufacturers. How, sir, I
ask, are we to know the motives of men? I thought then, and
think now, that the approaching election for President tended
greatly to the enactments of the acts of 1824 and 1828; many
of my friends thought so at the time. I have somewhere read
of the minister of a king or emperor in Asia, who was anxious
to be considered a man of truth, and always boasted of his
veracity. He hypocritically prayed to God that he might always
speak the truth. A genii appeared and told him that his prayer
had been heard, touched him with his spear, and said, hereafter
you will speak truth on all occasions. The next day he waited
on his majesty and said, Sire, I intended to have assassinated
you yesterday, but was prevented by the nod of the officer
behind you, who is to kill you to-morrow. The result I will not
mention. Now, Mr. President, if the same genii was to touch with
his spear each of the senators who voted for the act of 1828,
and an interrogator was appointed, he would ask, what induced
you to give that vote? Why sir, I acted on sound principles. I
believe it is the duty of every good government to promote the
manufactures of the nation; all historians eulogize the kings
who have done so, and censure those kings who have neglected
them. I refer you to the history of Alfred. It is known that
the staple of England was wool, which was sent to Flanders
to be exchanged for cloths. The civil wars, by the invasions
of that nation, kept them long dependent on the Flemings for
the cloths they wore. At length a good king governed; and he
invited Flemish manufacturers to England, and gave them great
privileges. They taught the youth of England, the manufacture
succeeded, and now England supplies all the world with woollen
cloth. The interrogator asked another the same question. His
answer might have been, that he thought the passing of the law
would secure the votes of the manufacturers in favor of his
friend who wanted to be the President. Another answer might
have been, a large duty was imposed on an article which my
constituents raised; and I voted for it, although I disliked
all the residue of the bill. Sir, the motives, no doubt, were
different that induced the voting for that bill, and were, as we
all know, not confined to the protective system. Many voted on
political grounds, as many will on this bill, and as they did on
the enforcing bill. We cannot declare a bill unconstitutional,
because of the motives that may govern the voters. It is idle
to assign such a cause for the part that is now acting in South
Carolina. I know, Mr. President, that no argument will have any
effect on the passage of this bill. The high contracting parties
have agreed. But I owed it to myself to make these remarks.

"Mr. Webster said, that he held the home valuation to be, to
any extent, impracticable; and that it was unprecedented, and
unknown in any legislation. Both the home and foreign valuation
ought to be excluded as far as possible, and specific duties
should be resorted to. This keeping out of view specific duties,
and turning us back to the principle of a valuation was, in
his view, the great vice of this bill. In England five out of
six, or nine out of ten articles, pay specific duties, and the
valuation is on the remnant. Among the articles which pay _ad
valorem_ duties in England are silk goods, which are imported
either from India, whence they are brought to one port only;
or from Europe, in which case there is a specific and an _ad
valorem_ duty; and the officer has the option to take either
the one or the other. He suggested that the Senate, before they
adopted the _ad valorem_ principle, should look to the effects
on the importation of the country.

"He took a view of the iron trade, to show that evil would
result to that branch from a substitution of the _ad valorem_
for the specific system of duties. He admitted himself to
be unable to comprehend the elements of a home valuation,
and mentioned cases where it would be impossible to find an
accurate standard of valuation of this character. The plan was
impracticable and illusory.

"Mr. Clayton said, I would go for this bill only for the sake
of concession. The senator from South Carolina can tell whether
it is likely to be received as such, and to attain the object
proposed; if not, I have a plain course to pursue; I am opposed
to the bill. Unless I can obtain for the manufacturers the
assurance that the principle of the bill will not be disturbed,
and that it will be received in the light of a concession, I
shall oppose it.

"Mr. Benton objected to the home valuation, as tending to a
violation of the constitution of the United States, and cited
the following clause: 'Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; but all duties,
imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United
States.' All uniformity of duties and imposts, he contended,
would be destroyed by this amendment. No human judgment could
fix the value of the same goods at the same rate, in all the
various ports of the United States. If the same individual
valued the goods in every port, and every cargo in every
port, he would commit innumerable errors and mistakes in the
valuation; and, according to the diversity of these errors and
mistakes, would be the diversity in the amount of duties and
imposts laid and collected in the different ports.

"Mr. B. objected to the home valuation, because it would be
injurious and almost fatal to the southern ports. He confined
his remarks to New Orleans. The standard of valuation would
be fifteen or twenty per cent. higher in New Orleans than in
New-York, and other northern ports. All importers will go to
the northeastern cities, to evade high duties at New Orleans;
and that great emporium of the West will be doomed to sink
into a mere exporting city, while all the money which it pays
for exports must be carried off and expended elsewhere for
imports. Without an import trade, no city can flourish, or even
furnish a good market for exports. It will be drained of its
effective cash, and deprived of its legitimate gains, and must
languish far in the rear of what it would be, if enriched with
the profits of an import trade. As an exporter, it will buy;
as an importer, it will sell. All buying, and no selling, must
impoverish cities as well as individuals. New Orleans is now
a great exporting city; she exports more domestic productions
than any city in the Union; her imports have been increasing,
for some years; and, with fair play, would soon become next to
New-York, and furnish the whole valley of the Mississippi with
its immense supplies of foreign goods; but, under the influence
of a home valuation, it must lose a greater part of the import
trade which it now possesses. In that loss, its wealth must
decline; its capacity to purchase produce for exportation must
decline; and as the western produce must go there, at all
events, every western farmer will suffer a decline in the value
of his own productions, in proportion to the decline of the
ability of New Orleans to purchase it. It was as a western
citizen that he pleaded the cause of New Orleans, and objected
to this measure of home valuation, which was to have the most
baneful effect upon her prosperity.

"Mr. B. further objected to the home valuation, on account of
the great additional expense it would create; the amount of
patronage it would confer; the rivalry it would beget between
importing cities; and the injury it would occasion to merchants,
from the detention and handling of their goods; and concluded
with saying, that the home valuation was the most obnoxious
feature ever introduced into the tariff acts; that it was
itself equivalent to a separate tariff of ten per cent.; that
it had always been resisted, and successfully resisted, by the
anti-tariff interest, in the highest and most palmy days of the
American system, and ought not now to be introduced when that
system is admitted to be nodding to its fall; when its death
is actually fixed to the 30th day of June, 1842, and when the
restoration of harmonious feelings is proclaimed to be the whole
object of this bill.

"Mr. B. said this was a strange principle to bring into a
bill to reduce duties. It was an increase, in a new form--an
indefinable form--and would be tax upon tax, as the whole
cost of getting the goods ready for a market valuation here,
would have to be included: original cost, freight, insurance,
commissions, duties here. It was new protection, in a new
form, and in an extraordinary form, and such as never could be
carried before. It had often been attempted, as as a part of the
American system, but never received countenance before.

"Mr. Calhoun rose and said:

"As the question is now about to be put on the amendment offered
by the senator from Kentucky, it became necessary for him to
determine whether he should vote for or against it. He must
be permitted again to express his regret that the senator had
thought proper to move it. His objection still remained strong
against it; but, as it seemed to be admitted, on all hands, that
the fate of the bill depended on the fate of the amendment,
feeling, as he did, a solicitude to see the question terminated,
he had made up his mind, not, however, without much hesitation,
not to interpose his vote against the adoption of the amendment;
but, in voting for it, he wished to be distinctly understood,
he did it upon two conditions: first, that no valuation would
be adopted that should come in conflict with the provision
in the constitution which declares that duties, excises, and
imposts shall be uniform; and, in the next place, that none
would be adopted which would make the duties themselves a part
of the element of a home valuation. He felt himself justified
in concluding that none such would be adopted; as it had been
declared by the supporters of the amendment, that no such
regulation was contemplated; and, in fact, he could not imagine
that any such could be contemplated, whatever interpretation
might be attempted hereafter to be given to the expression
of the home market. The first could scarcely be contemplated,
as it would be in violation of the constitution itself; nor
the latter, as it would, by necessary consequence, restore the
very duties, which it was the object of this bill to reduce,
and would involve the glaring absurdity of imposing duties on
duties, taxes on taxes. He wished the reporters for the public
press to notice particularly what he said, as he intended his
declaration to be part of the proceedings.

"Believing, then, for the reasons which he had stated, that it
was not contemplated that any regulation of the home valuation
should come in conflict with the provisions of the constitution
which he had cited, nor involve the absurdity of laying taxes
upon taxes, he had made up his mind to vote in favor of the
amendment.

"Mr. Smith said, any declaration of the views and motives,
under which any individual senator might now vote, could have
no influence, in 1842; they would be forgotten long before that
time had arrived. The law must rest upon the interpretation of
its words alone.

"Mr. Calhoun said he could not help that; he should endeavor to
do his duty.

"Mr. Clayton said there was certainly no ambiguity whatever
in the phraseology of the amendment. In advocating it, he had
desired to deceive no man; he sincerely hoped no one would
suffer himself to be deceived by it.

"Mr. Wilkins said, if it had been his intention to have voted
against the amendment, he should have remained silent; but,
after the explicit declaration of the honorable gentleman from
South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] of the reason of his vote, and
believing, himself, that the amendment would have a different
construction from that given it by the gentleman, he [Mr. W.]
would as expressly state, that he would vote on the question,
with the impression that it would not hereafter be expounded by
the declaration of any senator on this floor, but by the plain
meaning of the words in the text.

"The amendment of Mr. Clay, fixing the principle of home
valuation as a part of the bill, was then adopted, by the
following vote:

"YEAS.--Messrs. Bell, Black, Bibb, Calhoun, Chambers, Clay,
Clayton, Ewing, Foot, Frelinghuysen, Hill, Holmes, Johnson,
King, Knight, Miller, Moore, Naudain, Poindexter, Prentiss,
Rives, Robbins, Sprague, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wilkins.--26.

"NAYS.--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley,
Forsyth, Grundy, Kane, Robinson, Seymour, Silsbee, Smith,
Waggaman, Webster, White, Wright.--16."

And thus a new principle of protection, never before engrafted on the American system, and to get at which the constitution had to be violated in the article of the uniformity of duties, was established! and established by the aid of those who declared all protection to be unconstitutional, and just cause for the secession of a State from the Union! and were then acting on that assumption.