Chapter LXXIX

INFRINGEMENT OF THE TARIFF COMPROMISE ACT OF 1833: CORRECTION OF ABUSES IN DRAWBACKS

The history, both ostensible and secret, of this act has been given, and its brief existence foretold, although intended for perpetuity, and the fate of the Union, in numerous State legislative resolves, and in inumerable speeches, declared to depend upon its inviolability. It was assumed to have saved the Union: the corollary of that assumption was, that its breach would dissolve the Union. Equally vain and idle were both the assumption and the inference! and equally erroneous was the general voice, which attributed the act to Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun. They appeared to the outside observer as the authors of the act: the inside witness saw in Mr. John M. Clayton, of Delaware, and Mr. Robert P. Letcher, of Kentucky, its real architects--the former in commencing the measure and controlling its provisions; the latter as having brought Mr. Calhoun to its acceptance by the communication to him of President Jackson's intentions; and by his exertions in the House of Representatives. It was composed of two parts--one part to last nine years, for the benefit of the manufacturers: the other part to last for ever, for the benefit of the planting and consuming interest. Neither part lived out its allotted time; or, rather, the first part died prematurely, and the second never began to live. It was a _felo de se_ from the beginning, and bound to perish of the diseases in it. To Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun, it was a political necessity--one to get rid of a stumbling-block (which protective tariff had become); the other to escape a personal peril which his nullifying ordinance had brought upon him: and with both, it was a piece of policy, to enable them to combine against Mr. Van Buren, by postponing their own contention: and a device on the part of Mr. Clayton and Mr. Clay to preserve the protective system, doomed to a correction of its abuses at the ensuing session of Congress. The presidential election was over, and General Jackson elected to his second term, pledged to a revenue tariff and incidental protection: a majority of both Houses of Congress were under the same pledge: the public debt was rapidly verging to extinction: and both the circumstances of the Treasury, and the temper of the government were in harmony with the wishes of the people for a "judicious tariff;" limited to the levy of the revenue required for the economical administration of a plain government, and so levied as to extend encouragement to the home production of articles necessary to our independence and comfort. All this was ready to be done, and the country quieted for ever on the subject of the tariff, when the question was taken out of the hands of the government by a coalition between Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun, and a bill concocted, as vicious in principle, as it was selfish and unparliamentary in its conception and execution. The plan was to give the manufacturers their undue protection for nine years, by making annual reductions, so light and trifling during the time, that they would not be felt; and after the nine years, to give the anti-tariff party their millennium, in jumping down, at two leaps, in the two last years, to a uniform _ad valorem_ duty of twenty per centum on all dutied articles. All practical men saw at the time how this concoction would work--that it would produce more revenue than the government wanted the first seven years, and leave it deficient afterwards--that the result would be a revulsion of all interests against a system which left the government without revenue--and that, in this revulsion there must be a re-modelling, and an increase in the tariff: all ending in a complete deception to the anti-tariff party, who would see the protective part of the compromise fully enjoyed by the manufacturing interest, and the relief part for themselves wholly lost. All this was seen at the time: but a cry was got up, by folly and knavery, of danger to the Union: this bill was proclaimed as the only means of saving it: ignorance, credulity, timidity and temporizing temperaments united to believe it. And so the bill was accepted as a God-send: the coming of which had saved the Union--the loss of which would destroy it: and the two ostensible architects of the measure (each having worked in his own interest, and one greatly over-reaching the other), were saluted as pacificators, who had sacrificed their ambition upon the altar of patriotism for the good of their country.

The time had come for testing these opinions. We were in the eighth year of the compromise, the first part had nearly run its course: within one year the second part was to begin. The Secretary of the Treasury had declared the necessity of loans and taxes to carry on the government: a loan bill for twelve millions had been passed: a tariff bill to raise fourteen millions more was depending; and the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Millard Fillmore, thus defended its necessity:

"He took a view of the effects of the compromise act, in the
course of which he said that by that act one tenth of the
customs over twenty-five per cent. ad valorem was to come off
on the 1st January, 1834; and on the 1st January, 1836, another
tenth was to be deducted; on the 1st January, 1838, another
tenth; and on the 1st January, 1840, another tenth; and on the
1st January, 1842, three tenths more; and on the 1st July, 1842,
the remaining three tenths were to be deducted, so that, on
that day, what was usually termed the compromise act, was to go
fully into effect, and reduce the revenue to 20 per cent. ad
valorem on all articles imported into the country. It appeared
from a report submitted to this House (he meant the financial
report of the Secretary of the Treasury, document No. 2, page
20), showing the amount of imports for the seven years from 1834
to 1840 inclusive, that there were imported into this country
one hundred and forty-one million four hundred and seventy-six
thousand seven hundred and sixty-nine dollars' worth of goods,
of which seventy-one million seven hundred and twenty-eight
thousand three hundred and twelve dollars were free of duty,
and sixty-nine million seven hundred and forty-eight thousand
four hundred and fifty-seven dollars paid duty. Then, having
these amounts, and knowing that, by the compromise act, articles
paying duty over 20 per cent., and many of them paid more, were
to be reduced down to that standard, and all were to pay only
20 per cent., what would be the amount of revenue from that
source? Why, its gross amount would only be thirteen million
nine hundred and fifty thousand dollars in round numbers--that
is, taking the average of goods imported in the last seven
years, the whole gross amount of duty that would pass into the
Treasury, did all the imported articles pay the highest rate of
duty, would only be thirteen million nine hundred and fifty-four
thousand dollars--say fourteen millions of dollars in round
numbers."

Thus the compromise act, under its second stage, was only to produce about fourteen millions of dollars--little more than half what the exigencies of the government required. Mr. Fillmore passed in review the different modes by which money could be raised. _First_, by loans: and rejected that mode as only to be used temporarily, and until taxes of some kind could be levied. Next, by direct taxation: and rejected that mode as being contrary to the habits and feelings of the people. Thirdly, by duties: and preferred that mode as being the one preferred by the country, and by which the payment of the tax became, in a large degree, voluntary--according to the taste of the payer in purchasing foreign goods. He, therefore, with the Secretary of the Treasury, preferred that mode, although it involved an abrogation of the compromise. His bill proposed twenty per centum additional to the existing duty on certain specified articles--sufficient to make up the amount wanted. This encroachment on a measure so much vaunted when passed, and which had been kept inviolate while operating in favor of one of the parties to it, naturally excited complaint and opposition from the other; and Mr. Gilmer, of Virginia, said:

"In referring to the compromise act, the true characteristics
of that act which recommended it strongly to him, were that it
contemplated that duties were to be levied for revenue only, and
in the next place to the amount only necessary to the supply
of the economical wants of the government. He begged leave to
call the attention of the committee to the principle recognized
in the language of the compromise--a principle which ought to
be recognized in all time to come by every department of the
government. It is, said he, that duties to be raised for revenue
are to be raised to such an amount only as is necessary for an
economical administration of the government. Some incidental
protection must necessarily be given, and he, for one, coming
from an anti-tariff portion of the country, would not object
to it. But said he, we were told yesterday by the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS], that he did not consider the
compromise binding, because it was a compact between the South
and the West, in which New England was not a party, and it was
crammed down her throat by the previous question, he voting
against it. The gentleman from Pennsylvania said to-day almost
the same thing, for he considered it merely a point of honor
which he was willing to concede to the South, and that object
gained, there was no longer reason for adhering to it.

"Did the gentleman contend that no law was binding on New
England, and on him, unless it is sanctioned by him and the
New England delegation? Sir, said Mr. G., I believe that it is
binding, whether sanctioned by New England or not. The gentleman
said that he would give the public lands to the States, and the
compromise act to the dogs. Sir, if the lands are to be given
to the States, if upwards of three millions are to be deducted
from that source of revenue, and we are then to be told that
this furnishes a pretext, first for borrowing, and then for
taxing the people, we may well feel cause for insisting on the
obligations of the compromise. Sir, said Mr. G., gentlemen know
very well that there is some virtue in the compromise act, and
that though it may be repudiated by a few of the representatives
of the people, yet the people themselves will adhere to it as
the means of averting the greatest of evils. But he had seen
enough to show him that the power of giving might be construed
as the power of taking, and he should not be surprised to see a
proposition to assume the debts of the States--for the more that
you give, the more that is wanted.

"After some further remarks, Mr. G. said that he was opposed to
the hurrying of this important measure through at the present
session. Let us wait until sufficient information is obtained
to enable us to act judiciously. Let us wait to inquire whether
there is any necessity for raising an increased revenue of
eight millions of dollars from articles, all of which, under
the compromise act, are either free of duty or liable to a
duty of less than 20 per cent. Let us not be told that on
account of the appropriations for a home squadron, and for
fortifications amounting to about three millions of dollars,
that it is necessary to raise this large sum. We have already
borrowed twelve millions of dollars, and during the remainder
of the year, Mr. Ewing tells us that the customs will yield
five millions, which together, will make seventeen millions
of dollars of available means in the Treasury. Then there was
a large sum in the hands of the disbursing officers of the
government, and he ventured to assert that there would be more
than twenty millions at the disposal of the Treasury before
the expiration of the next session of Congress. Are we to be
told, said Mr. G., that we are to increase the tariff in order
to give to the States this fourth instalment under the deposit
act? No sir; let us arrest this course of extravagance at the
outset; let us arrest that bill which is now hanging in the
other House [the distribution bill], and which I trust will ever
hang there. Let us arrest that bill and the proceeds from that
source will, in the coming four years, pay this twelve million
loan. But these measures are all a part of the same system.
Distribution is used as a pretext for a loan, and a loan is used
as a pretext for high duties. This was an extraordinary session
of Congress, and inasmuch as there would be within a few months
a regular session--inasmuch as the Committee on Commerce had
reported a resolution contemplating the organization of a select
committee, with a view to the collection of information to aid
in the revision of the tariff for revenue--and inasmuch as the
compromise goes fully into operation in July next--he thought
that wisdom, as well as justice, demanded that they should not
hurry through so important a measure, when it was not absolutely
essential to the wants of the government.

"After some further remarks, Mr. G. said that it was time that
he and his whig friends should understand one another. He wanted
now to understand what were the cardinal principles of the whig
party, of which he was an humble member. He had for six or seven
years been a member of that party, and thought he understood
their principles, but he much feared that he had been acting
under some delusion; and now that they were all here together,
he wished to come to a perfect understanding."

The perfect understanding of each other which Mr. Gilmer wished to have with his whig friends, was a sort of an appeal to Mr. Clay to stand by the act of 1833. He represented that party on one side of the compromise, and Mr. Calhoun the other: and now, when it was about to be abrogated, he naturally called on the guaranty of the other side to come to the rescue. Mr. Charles Jared Ingersoll, pleasantly and sarcastically apostrophized the two eminent chiefs, who represented two opposite parties, and gloriously saved the Union (without the participation of the government), at the making of that compromise: and treated it as glory that had passed by:

"I listened with edification to the account of the venerable
member from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS], of the method of enacting
the compromise act--what may be called the perpetration of that
memorable measure. Certainly it put an end to fearful strife.
Perhaps it saved this glorious Union. I wish to be understood
as speaking respectfully of both the distinguished persons who
are said to have accomplished it. After all, however, it was
rather their individual achievement than an act of Congress.
The two chiefs, the towering peaks, of overhanging prohibitory
protection and forcible nullification, nodded their summits
together, and the work was done, without the active agency of
either the executive or legislative branches of government.
Its influences on public tranquillity were benignant. But how
to be regarded as economical or constitutional lessons, is a
different question, which, at this session, I am hardly prepared
to unravel. Undiscriminating impost, twenty per cent. flush
throughout, on all articles alike, will not answer the purposes
of the Union, or of my State. It is not supposed by their
advocates that it will. The present bill is to be transient; we
are to have more particular, more thorough and permanent laws
hereafter. Without giving in my adhesion to the compromise act,
or announcing opposition to it, I hope to see such government
as will ensure steady employment, at good wages, by which I mean
high wages, paid in hard money; no others can be good, high,
or adequate, or money at all; for every branch of industry,
agricultural, commercial, manufacturing, and navigation, that
palmy state of a country, to which this of all others is
entitled, _pulcherrimo populi fasligio_."

Mr. Pickens, of South Carolina, the intimate friend of Mr. Calhoun, also raised his voice against the abrogation of the act which had been kept in good faith by the free-trade party, and the consuming classes while so injurious to them, and was now to be impaired the moment it was to become beneficial:

"All the gentlemen who had spoken denied the binding force of
the compromise act. Was this the doctrine of the party in power?
Mr. P. had wished to hear from Kentucky, that he might discover
whether this had been determined in conclave. The struggle would
be severe to bring back the system of 1824, '28, and '32. The
fact could no longer be disguised; and gentlemen might prepare
themselves for the conflict. He saw plainly that this bill was
to be passed by, and that all the great questions of the tariff
policy would be again thrown open as though the compromise
act had no existence. Was this fair? In 1835-6, when the last
administration had taken possession of power, it was determined
that the revenue must be reduced; but Mr. P. had at that time
insisted that, though there was a surplus, the compromise act
was not lightly to be touched, and that it would therefore be
better to forbear and let that act run its course. Gentlemen on
the other side had then come up and congratulated him on his
speech; for they had already received the benefit of that act
for four years. Then his doctrine was all right and proper; but
now, when the South came to enjoy its share of the benefit, they
took the other side, and the compromise was as nothing. One
gentleman had said that twenty-eight millions would be needed to
carry on the government; another, that twenty-seven; another,
that twenty-five; and in this last opinion, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. INGERSOLL] agreed. And, as this sum could not
be raised without duties over 20 per cent. the compromise must
be set aside. Until lately Mr. P. had not been prepared for
this; he had expected that at least the general spirit of that
act would be carried out in the legislation of Congress; but he
now saw that the whole tariff question must be met in all its
length and breadth."

Very justly did Mr. Pickens say that the bill had been kept inviolate while operating injuriously to the consumers--that no alteration would be allowed in it. That was the course of the Congress to such a degree that a palpable error in relation to drawbacks was not allowed to be rectified, though plundering the Treasury of some hundreds of thousands of dollars per annum. But the new bill was to be passed: it was a necessity: for, in the language of Mr. Adams, the compromise act had beggared the Treasury, and would continue to beggar it--producing only half enough for the support of the government: and the misfortune of the free trade party was, that they did not foresee that consequence at the time, as others did; or seeing it, were obliged to submit to what the high tariff party chose to impose upon them, to release eminent men of South Carolina from the perilous condition in which the nullification ordinance had placed them. It passed the House by a vote of 116 to 101--the vote against it being stronger than the resistance in debate indicated.

The expenses of collecting the duties under the universal _ad valorem_ system, in which every thing had to be valued, was enormous, and required an army of revenue officers--many of them mere hack politicians, little acquainted with their business, less attentive to it, giving the most variant and discordant valuations to the same article at different places, and even in the same place at different times; and often corruptly; and more occupied with politics than with custom-house duties. This was one of the evils foreseen when specific duties were abolished to make way for _ad valorems_ and home valuations, and will continue until specific duties are restored as formerly, or "_angels_" procured to make the valuations. Mr. Charles Jared Ingersoll exposed this abuse in the debate upon this bill, showing that it cost nearly two millions of dollars to collect thirteen; and that two thousand officers were employed about it, who also employed themselves in the elections. He said:

"Even the direct tax and internal duties levied during the late
war cost but little more than five per cent. for collection;
whereas, now, upon an income decreasing under the compromise act
in geometrical ratio, the cost of collecting it increases in
that ratio; amounting, according to the answer I got from the
chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, to at least twelve
per cent.; near two millions of dollars, says the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]--one million seven hundred
thousand dollars. To manage the customs, government is obliged
to employ not less than two thousand officers, heavily paid,
and said to be the most active partisans; those who, in this
metropolis, are extremely annoying by their importunate contests
for office, and elsewhere still more offensive by misconduct,
sometimes of a gross kind, as in the instance of one, whom I
need not name, in my district. The venerable gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. EVERETT] suggested yesterday a tax on auctions as
useful to American manufactures. On that, I give no opinion.
But this I say, that a stamp tax on bank notes, and a duty on
auctions, would not require fifty men to collect them. It is not
for us of the minority to determine whether they should be laid.
Yet I make bold to suggest to the friends of the great leader,
who, next to the President, has the power of legislation at
present, that one of three alternatives is inevitable."

The bill went to the Senate where it found its two authors--such to the public; but in relative positions very different from what they were when it was passed--then united, now divided--then concurrent, now antagonistic: and the antagonism, general upon all measures, was to be special on this one. Their connection with the subject made it their function to lead off in its consideration; and their antagonist positions promised sharp encounters--which did not fail to come. From the first word temper was manifest; and especially on the part of Mr. Clay. He proposed to go on with the bill when it was called: Mr. Calhoun wished it put off till Monday. (It was then Friday.) Mr. Clay persevered in his call to go on with the bill, as the way to give general satisfaction. Then ensued a brief and peremptory scene, thus appearing in the Register of Debates:

"Mr. CALHOUN thought the subject had better lie over. Senators
had not an opportunity of examining the amendments; indeed, few
had even the bill before them, not expecting it to come up. He
agreed with the senator from Kentucky that it was important to
give satisfaction, but the best way was to do what was right
and proper; and he always found that, in the end, it satisfied
more persons than they would by looking about and around to see
what particular interest could be conciliated. Whatever touched
the revenue touched the pockets of the people, and should be
looked to with great caution. Nothing, in his opinion, was so
preposterous as to expect, by a high duty on these articles, to
increase the revenue. If the duty was placed at 20 per cent.
it would be impossible to prevent smuggling. The articles in
question would not bear any such duty; indeed, if they were
reduced to 5 per cent. more revenue would be realized. He
really hoped the senator would let the matter lie over until
to-morrow or Monday."

"Mr. CLAY said he always found, when there was a journey to
be performed, that it was as well to make the start; if they
only got five or six miles on the way, it was so much gained at
least."

"Mr. CALHOUN. We ought to have had some notice."

"Mr. CLAY. I give you notice now. Start! start! The amendment
was very simple, and easily understood. It was neither more
nor less than to exempt the articles named from the list of
exceptions in the bill, by which they would be subjected to a
duty of 20 per cent. Those who agreed to it could say 'aye,' and
those who did not 'no;' and that was all he should say on the
subject."

The bill went on. Mr. Calhoun said:

"He was now to be called on to vote for this bill, proposing, as
it did, a great increase of taxes on the community, because it
was an exigency measure. He should give his votes as if for the
permanent settlement of the tariff. The exigency was produced
by the gentlemen on the opposite side, and they should be held
responsible for it. This necessity had been produced by the
present administration--it was of their making, and he should
vote for this as if he were settling the taxes, and as if the
gentlemen had done their duty, and had not by extravagance and
distribution created a deficiency in the Treasury, for which
they were responsible. They yesterday passed a bill emptying the
Treasury, by giving away the proceeds of the public lands, and
to-day we have a bill to supply the deficiency by a resort to a
tax which in itself was a violation of the compromise act. The
compromise act provides that no duty shall be laid except for
the economical support of the government; and he regarded the
giving away of the public lands a violation of that act, whether
the duty was raised to 20 per cent. or not, because they had
not attempted to bring down the expenses of the government to
an economical standard. He should proceed with this bill as if
he were fixing the tariff; he thought an average of twelve and
a half per cent. on our imports would raise an ample revenue
for the support of the government, and in his votes on the
several classes of articles he should bear this average in mind,
imposing higher duties on some, and lower duties on others, as
he thought the several cases called for."

"Mr. Benton said the bill came in the right place; and at the right moment: it came to fill up the gap which we had just made in the revenue by voting away the land-money. He should not help to fill that gap. Those who made it may fill it. He knew the government needed money, and must have it, and he did not intend to vote factiously, to stop its wheels, but considerately to compel it to do right. Stop the land-money distribution, and he would vote to supply its place by increased duties on imports; but while that branch of the revenue was lavished on the States in order to purchase popularity for those who squandered it, he would not become accessory to their offence by giving them other money to enable them to do so. The present occasion, he said, was one of high illustration of the vicious and debauching distribution schemes. When those schemes were first broached in this chamber ten years before, it was solely to get rid of a surplus--solely to get rid of money lying idle in the Treasury--merely to return to the people money which they had put into the Treasury and for which there was no public use. Such was the argument for these distributions for the first years they were attempted. Then the distributors advanced a step further, and proposed to divide the land money for a series of years, without knowing whether there would be any surplus or not. Now they have taken the final stride, and propose to borrow money, and divide it: propose to raise money by taxes, and divide it: for that is what the distribution of the land money comes to. It is not a separate fund: it is part of the public revenue: it is in the Treasury: and is as much custom-house revenue, for the customs have to be resorted to to supply its place. It is as much public money as that which is obtained upon loan: for the borrowed money goes to supply its loss. The distribution law is a fraud and a cheat on its face: its object is to debauch the people, and to do it with their own money; and I will neither vote for the act; nor for any tax to supply its place."

It was moved by Mr. Woodbury to include sumach among the dutiable articles, on the ground that it was an article of home growth, and the cultivation of it for domestic manufacturing purposes ought to be encouraged. Mr. Clay opposed this motion, and fell into a perfect free-trade argument to justify his opposition, and to show that sumach ought to come in free. This gave Mr. Calhoun an opportunity, which was not neglected, to compliment him on his conversion to the right faith; and this compliment led to some interesting remarks on both sides, in which each greeted the other in a very different spirit from what they had done when they were framing that compromise which one of them was now breaking. Thus:

"Mr. CLAY said it was very true that sumach was an article of
home growth; but he understood it was abundant where it was not
wanted; and where those manufactures exist which would require
it, there was none to be found. Under these circumstances, it
had not as yet been cultivated for manufacturing purposes, and
probably would not be, as long as agricultural labor could be
more profitably employed. Imported sumach came from countries
where labor was much cheaper than in this country, and he
thought it was for the interest of our manufacturers to obtain
it upon the cheapest terms they can. Our agricultural labor
would be much employed in other channels of industry."

"Mr. CALHOUN was very glad to hear the senator from Kentucky at
last coming round in support of this sound doctrine. It was just
what he (Mr. Calhoun) had long expected that Mr. Clay would be
forced to conform to, that those articles ought to be imported,
which can be obtained from abroad on cheaper terms than they can
be produced at home."

"Mr. CLAY thought the senator from South Carolina was not
entitled to his interpretation of what he (Mr. Clay) had
said. The senator converts a few words expressed in favor
of continuing the free importation of sumach, under present
circumstances, into a general approbation of free trade--a thing
wholly out of view in his (Mr. Clay's) mind at the time he made
his remarks. It was certainly owing to the peculiar habit of
mind in which the senator from South Carolina was so fond of
indulging, that he was thus always trying to reduce every thing
to his system of abstractions."

These "abstractions," and this "peculiar habit," were a standing resort with Mr. Clay when a little pressed by Mr. Calhoun. They were mere flouts, but authorizing retaliation; and, on the present occasion, when the question was to break up that compromise which (in his part of it, the universal 20 per cent. ad valorems) was the refined essence of Mr. Calhoun's financial system, and which was to be perpetual, and for which he had already paid the consideration in the nine years' further endurance of the protective system: when this was the work in hand, and it aggravated by the imperative manner in which it was brought on--refusal to wait till Monday, and that most extemporaneous notice, accompanied by the command, "start! start!"--all this was a good justification to Mr. Calhoun in the biting spirit which he gave to his replies--getting sharper as he went on, until Mr. Clay pleasantly took refuge under sumach--popularly called shoe-make in the South and West.

"Mr. Calhoun observed that the senator from Kentucky had
evidently very strong prejudices against what he calls
abstractions. This would be easily understood when we take into
consideration what the senator and his friends characterized
as abstractions. What he and they called abstractions, was the
principle of scrutiny and opposition so powerfully evinced by
this side of the Senate, against the low estimates, ruinous
projects, and extravagant expenditures which constitute the
leading measures of the present administration. As regards the
principles of free trade, if these were abstractions, he was
happy to know that he was in company with some of the ablest
statesmen of Great Britain. He referred to the report recently
made in Parliament on this subject--a document of eminent
ability."

"Mr. Clay observed that the senator from South Carolina
based his abstractions on the theories of books--on English
authorities, and on the arguments urged in favor of free trade
by a certain party in the British Parliament. Now, he (Mr.
Clay), and his friends would not admit of these authorities
being entitled to as much weight as the universal practice of
nations, which in all parts of the world was found to be in
favor of protecting home manufactures to an extent sufficient
to keep them in a flourishing condition. This was the whole
difference. The senator was in favor of book theory and
abstractions: he (Mr. Clay) and his friends were in favor of the
universal practice of nations, and the wholesome and necessary
protection of domestic manufactures. And what better proof
could be given of national decision on this point than that
furnished by the recent elections in Great Britain. A report on
the subject of free trade, written by the astute and ingenious
Scotchman, Mr. Hume, had obtained pretty general circulation in
this country. On the principles set forth in that report the
British ministry went before the people of England at a general
election, and the result proved that they were repudiated."

"Mr. Calhoun had supposed the senator from Kentucky was
possessed of more tact than to allude at all to the recent
elections in England, and claim them as a triumph of his
principles, much less to express himself in such strong terms
of approbation at the result. The senator was, however,
elated at the favorable result of the late elections to the
tory party in England. That was not much to be wondered at,
for the interests, objects, and aims of the tory party there
and the whig party here, are identical. The identity of the
two parties is remarkable. The tory party are the patrons of
corporate monopolies; _and are not you?_ They are advocates of
a high tariff; _and are not you?_ They are the supporters of a
national bank; _and are not you?_ They are for corn-laws--laws
oppressive to the mass of the people, and favorable to their
own power; _and are not you?_ Witness this bill. The tory party
in England are not supported by the British people. That party
is the representative of the mere aristocracy of the country,
which, by the most odious and oppressive system of coercion
exercised over the tenantry of the country, has obtained the
power of starving the mass of the people, by the continuation
of laws exclusively protecting the landed interests, that is,
the rent rolls of the aristocracy. These laws that party will
uphold, rather than suffer the people to obtain cheap bread. The
administration party in England wished to dissipate this odious
system of exclusive legislation, and to give the mass of the
people cheap bread. This the senator from Kentucky characterizes
as ridiculous abstraction. And who are these tories of England?
Do not the abolitionists constitute a large portion of that
party? Those very abolitionists, who have more sympathy for the
negroes of the West India Islands, than for the starving and
oppressed white laborers of England. And why? Because it is
the interest of the tory party to have high rents at home, and
high tariff duties against the sugar of this country, for the
protection of the owners of estates in the West India Islands.
This is the party, the success of which, at the recent elections
in Great Britain, has so elated the senator from Kentucky! The
success of that party in England, and of the whig party here,
is the success of the great money power, which concentrates the
interests of the two parties, and identifies their principles.
The struggle of both is a struggle for the ascendency of this
great money power. When the whole subject is narrowly looked
into, it is seen that the whole question at issue is that of
the ascendency of this enormous and dangerous power, or that
of popular rights. And this is a struggle which the opposition
in this Capitol, to whom alone the people of this country can
now look for protection against the measures threatened to be
consummated here, will maintain to the last, regardless of the
success of the tories abroad or their allies at home."

Mr. Clay did not meet these biting interrogatories. He did not undertake to show any injustice in classifying his modern whig party with the English high tory party, but hauled off, washing his hands of sympathy for that party--a retreat, for which Mr. Calhoun taunted him in his reply. Fact was, the old federal party--and I never refer to them as such in reproach--had become unpopular, and changed name without changing principles. They took that of whig, as having a seductive revolutionary odor, without seeming to perceive that it had not a principle in common with the whigs of the revolution which their adversaries had not also; and that in reality they occupied the precise ground in our political parties which the high tory party did in England. Mr. Calhoun drove this home to Mr. Clay with a point and power, and a closeness of application, which stuck, and required an exculpatory answer, if any could be given. But none such was attempted, either by Mr. Clay, or any of his friends; and the issue has shown the folly of taking a name without corresponding works. The name "whig" has been pretty well given up, without finding a better, and perhaps without saving the commendable principle of conservatism which was in it; and which, in its liberal and enlightened sense, is so essential in all governments. One thing both the disputants seemed to forget, though others did not; and that was, that Mr. Calhoun had acted with this party for ten years against President Jackson.

"Mr. Clay denied that he had made any boast of the success
of the tories in the English elections. He had expressed no
sympathy with that party. He cared nothing about their success,
though he did hope that the tories would not come into power in
this country. He had only adverted to their triumph in England
as an evidence of the sense of the English nation on the subject
of free trade. His argument was, that no matter what contending
politicians said about abstract principles, when it came to the
practical action of the whole nation on these principles, that
action was found decisive against theories and in favor of the
practice of nations all over the globe. As to the success of
the tories in England, he had frequently made the remark that
this government had more to expect from the justice of a tory
minister than a whig ministry, either in England or France, as
the latter were afraid of being accused of being swayed by their
liberal sentiments."

This was disavowing a fellow-feeling--not showing a difference; and Mr. Calhoun, seeing his advantage, followed it up with clinching vigor, and concluded with a taunt justified by the occasion.

"Mr. Calhoun said when there was a question at issue between
the senator from Kentucky and himself, that senator was not the
judge of its accuracy, nor was he; but he would leave it to the
Senate, and to all present who had heard the argument, if he had
not met it fairly. Did he not quote, in tones of exultation,
the triumph of the tory party in England as the triumph of his
principles over the principles of free trade? And when he (Mr.
Calhoun) had noticed the points of identity in principle between
the tory party of England and the whig party of this country,
had the senator attempted to reply? Nay more, he had alluded to
the striking coincidence between the party affinities in Great
Britain and this country, and showed that this victory was not
a tory victory only, but an abolitionist victory--the advocates
of high taxes on sugar joining the advocates of high taxes on
bread, and now the senator wishes to produce the impression
that he had not fairly met the question, and tries to make a
new issue. There was one trait in the senator's character,
which he had often noticed. He makes his onslaughts with great
impetuosity, not always thinking where they will carry him; and
when he finds himself in difficulty, all his great ingenuity
is taxed to make a skilful retreat. Like the French general,
Moreau, he is more celebrated for the dexterity of his retreats
than the fame of his battles."

Mr. Clay pleasantly terminated this interlude, which was certainly unprofitable to him, by recalling the Senate to the question before them, which was simply in relation to the free, or taxed importation of _sumach_: a word which he pronounced with an air and emphasis, peculiar to himself, and which had the effect of a satiric speech when he wished to make any thing appear contemptible, or ridiculous.

"Mr. Clay of Kentucky was not going into a dissertation on the
political institutions of the British nation. He would merely
recapitulate the facts with relation to the question at issue
between the administration party in England and the tory party.
Here Mr. Clay re-stated the position of both parties at the
recent election, and the result; and concluded by declaring,
that, after all, it was not a question now before the Senate,
whether it was a tory victory in England and a whig victory
here, but whether _sumach_ was or was not to be admitted free
of duty. He thought it would be just as well to revert to that
question and let it be decided. For his part, he cared very
little whether it was or was not. He would leave it to the
Senate to decide the question just as it pleased."

The vote was taken: sumach was taxed: the foreign rival was discouraged--with what benefit to the American farmer, and the domestic grower of the article, the elaborate statistics of the decennial census has yet failed to inform us. But certainly so insignificant a weed has rarely been the occasion of such keen debate, between such eminent men, on a theatre so elevated. The next attempt to amend the bill was at a point of more concern to the American farmer: and appears thus in the Register of Debates:

"Mr. ALLEN had proposed to make salt a free article, which Mr.
WALKER had proposed to amend by adding gunny bags.

"Mr. BENTON appealed to the senator from Mississippi to withdraw
his amendment, and let the vote be taken on salt.

"Mr. KING also appealed to the senator from Mississippi to
withdraw his amendment.

"Mr. WALKER said, at the suggestion of his friends, he should
withdraw his amendment for the present, as it was supposed by
some it might embarrass the original amendment.

"Mr. HUNTINGTON opposed the amendment as tending to a
violation of the compromise act. It would result, also, in the
annihilation of the extensive American works engaged in this
manufacture, and would give the foreign manufacturers a monopoly
in trade, which would tend to greatly increase the price of the
article as it entered into the consumption of the country.

"Mr. KING was in favor of the compromise act, so far as it
could be maintained. The article of salt entered equally into
the consumption of all classes--the poor as well as the rich.
He should vote for this amendment. If the senator wished, he
would vote to amend the proposition so that it should not take
effect till the 30th of June, 1842; and that would prevent its
interference with the compromise. He hoped the experiment would
be made, and be ascertained whether revenue sufficient for the
expenses of government could be raised by taxation on other
articles which could better bear it. He should vote for the
amendment.

"Mr. BATES said the duty on salt affected two great portions
of the community in a very different manner--the interior of
the country, which derived their supplies from the domestic
manufacture, from salines, and those parts on the seaboard which
were supplied with imported salt. The price of salt for the
interior of the country, which was supplied with domestic salt,
of which there was a great abundance, would not be affected by
an imposition of duty, as the price was regulated by the law of
nature, and could not be repealed or modified; but the price of
salt on the seaboard, which was supplied by imports, and some
manufactured from marine water, would, however gentlemen might
be disposed to disbelieve it, be increased if the duty were
taken off; as the manufactories of salt from marine water would
be entirely suspended, since none would continue the investment
of their capital in so uncertain a business--the foreign supply
being quite irregular. Thus perhaps, a third of the supplies
being cut off, a greater demand would arise, and the price be
increased on the seaboard, while the interior would not be
affected.

"Mr. SEVIER wished to know how much revenue was collected from
salt; he had heard it stated that the drawbacks amounted to more
than the duty; if so, it would be better to leave it among the
free articles.

"Mr. CLAY did not recollect positively; he believed the duty was
about $400,000, and the drawbacks near $260,000--the tax greatly
exceeded the drawback.

"Mr. CALHOUN said, individually there was, perhaps, no article
which he would prefer to have exempted from duty than salt, but
he was opposed, by any vote of his, to give a pretext for a
violation of the compromise act hereafter. The duty on salt was
going off gradually, and full as rapidly as was consistent with
safety to commercial interests. No one could regard the bill
before them as permanent. It was evident that the whole system
would have to be revised under the compromise system.

"Mr. WALKER was warmly in favor of the amendment. He regarded a
tax on salt as inhuman and unjust. It was almost as necessary to
human life as the air they breathed, and should be exempted from
all burdens whatever.

"Mr. ALLEN then modified his amendment so as that it should not
take effect until after the 3d of June, 1842.

"Mr. CLAY spoke against the amendment; and said the very
circumstance of the universality of its use, was a reason it
should come in for its share of taxation. He never talked about
the _poor_, but he believed he felt as much, and probably more,
than those who did. Who were the poor? Why we were all poor;
and any attempt to select certain classes for taxation was
absurd, as before the collector came round they might be poor.
He expressed the hope that the tax might not be interfered with.
This was a subject which Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Macon took under
their peculiar care, and other gentlemen had since mounted the
hobby, and literally rode it down. He could tell them, if they
desired to preserve the compromise, they must leave the salt tax
alone.

"The debate was further continued by Messrs. WALKER, BENTON,
CALHOUN, and PRESTON, when the question was taken on the
adoption of the amendment, and decided in the negative, as
follows:

"YEAS--Messrs. Allen, Benton, Buchanan, Clay of Alabama,
Cuthbert, Fulton, King, Linn, McRoberts, Mouton, Nicholson,
Pierce, Prentiss, Preston, Smith of Connecticut, Tappan, Walker,
White, Woodbury, Wright, and Young--21.

"NAYS--Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Bates, Berrien, Calhoun, Choate,
Clay of Kentucky, Clayton, Dixon, Evans, Graham, Henderson,
Huntington, Ker, Mangum, Merrick, Miller, Porter, Smith of
Indiana, Southard, Sturgeon, Tallmadge, and Woodbridge--23.

This odious and impious tax on salt has been kept up by a combination of private and political interests. The cod and mackerel fisheries of New England and the domestic manufacturers of salt on the Kenhawa and in New York, constituting the private interest; and the tariff-protective party constituting the political interest. The duty has been reduced, not abolished; and the injury has become greater to the Treasury in consequence of the reduction; and still remains considerable to the consumers. The salt duty, previous to the full taking effect of the compromise act of 1833, paid the fishing bounties and allowances founded upon it, and left a surplus for the Treasury: now, and since 1842, these bounties and allowances take the whole amount of the salt duty, and a large sum besides, out of the public Treasury. In five years (from 1848 to 1854), the duty produced from about $210,000, to $220,000; and the bounties and allowances during the same time, were from about $240,000, to $300,000; leaving the Treasury a loser to the amount of the difference: and, without going into figures, the same result may be predicated of every year since 1842. To the consumer the tax still remaining, although only one-fifth of the value, about doubles the cost of the article consumed to the consumer. It sends all the salt to the custom-house, and throws it into the hands of regraters; and they combine, and nearly double the price.

The next attempt to amend the bill was on Mr. Woodbury's motion to exempt tea and coffee from duty, which was successful by a large vote--39 to 10. The nays were: Messrs. Archer, Barrow, Berrien, Clay of Kentucky, Henderson, Leeds, Kerr, Merrick, Preston, Rives, Southard. The bill was then passed by a general vote, only eleven against it, upon the general ground that the government must have revenue: but those who voted against it thought the proper way to stop the land bill was to deny this supply until that was given up.

The compromise act of 1833--by a mere blunder, for it cannot be supposed such an omission could have been intentional--in providing for the reduction of duties on imported sugars, molasses, and salt, made no corresponding provision for the reduction of drawbacks when the sugars underwent refining and exportation; nor upon molasses when converted into rum and exported; nor on the fishing bounties and allowances, when the salt was re-exported on the fish which had been cured by it. This omission was detected at the time by members not parties to the compromise, but not allowed to be corrected by any one unfriendly to the compromise. The author of this View offered an amendment to that effect--which was rejected, by yeas and nays, as follows: Yeas--Messrs. Benton, Buckner, Calhoun, Dallas, Dickerson, Dudley, Forsyth, Johnson, Kane, King, Rives, Robinson, Seymour, Tomlinson, Webster, White, Wilkins, and Wright. 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, and Tyler. Of those then voting against this provision, one (Mr. Ewing, as Secretary of the Treasury), now, in 1841, recommended its adoption, so far as it related to refined sugars and rum; another (Mr. Clay), supported his recommendation; a third (Mr. Tyler), approved the act which adopted it: but all this, after the injury had been going on for eight years, and had plundered the Treasury of one and a half millions of dollars. The new tariff act of this extra session made the corresponding reductions, and by a unanimous vote in each House; the writer of this View, besides his motion at the time, having renewed it, and in vain, almost every year afterwards--always rejected on the cry that the compromise was sacred and inviolable--had saved the Union at the time it was made, and would endanger it the day it was broken. Well! it was pretty well broken at this extra session: and the Union was just as much destroyed by its breaking as it had been saved by its making. In one case the reductions of drawback remained untouched--that of the bounties and allowances to the cod and mackerel fisheries, founded on the idea of returning to the fisherman, or the exporter, the amount of duty supposed to have been paid on the imported salt carried back out of the country on that part of the fish which was exported. The fisheries have so long possessed this advantage that they now claim it as a right--no such pretension being set up until it was attacked as an abuse. A committee of the Senate, in the year 1846, of which Mr. Benton was chairman, and Mr. John Davis of Massachusetts, and Mr. Alexander Anderson, were members, made a report which explored this abuse to its source; but without being able to get it corrected. The abuse commenced after the late war with Great Britain, and has taken since that time about six millions of dollars; and is now going at the rate of about three hundred thousand dollars per annum. In the earlier ages of the government, these bounties and allowances were always stated in the annual treasury report, according to their true nature in connection with the salt duties, and as dependent upon those duties: and the sums allowed were always carried out in bushels of salt: which would show how much salt was supposed to have been carried out of the country on the exported fish. A treasury statement of that kind at present, would show about one million three hundred thousand bushels of foreign salt (for it is only on the foreign that the bounties and allowances accrue), so exported, while there is only about one million of bushels imported--nineteen-twentieths of which is employed in other branches of business--beef and pork packing, and bacon curing, for example: and there can be no doubt but that these branches export far more foreign salt on the articles they send abroad, than is done on cod and mackerel exported. In viewing the struggles about these bounties and allowances, I have often had occasion to admire the difference between the legislators of the North and those of the South and West--the former always intent upon the benefits of legislation--the latter upon the honors of the government.