SPEECH ME. C. HUDSON. OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON THE TARIFF. Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. S. ; June 29,1846, The House being in Committee of the Whole on the bill reducing duties on imports— Mr. HUDSON of Massachusetts, having obtained the floor, said : Mr. Chairman : I never, I confess, felt more embarrassment in address¬ ing the House, than I do at this time on this subject. But iny enfbatrass- ment arises not so much from the novelty of the subject, as from the nov¬ elty of the bill, and the arguments by which it is attempted to be sustained. In former days when this subject came under discussion, certain princi¬ ples appeared to be settled. It was admitted as a general truth, that in¬ creasing the duties would increase the revenue, and reducing the duties would reduce the revenue. But now this great principle is not only called in question, but the opposite is put forth as a settled truth by the advocates of this bill. In his message in 1S06, Mr. Jefferson spoke fully upon the subject, and his argument was founded upon the fact, well known and acknowleged, ihat the revenue would fall off if the duties were reduced. Mr. Madison’s administration, during the late war with Great Britain, doubled the duties for the purpose of increasing the revenue. General Jackson, tlnough his whole administration looked forward to the time when the national debt would be paid off, and the rate of duties might be reduced. The compro¬ mise act was advocated on the same ground ; and in 1837, when Mr. Cam- breleng introduced his famous bill from the Committee of Ways and Means to reduce the revenue to the wants of the government, he proposed to do it by making material reductions in the rates of duties on imports. But it is unnecessary to particularize; every President and every Secretary of the Treasury, from General Washington and Alexander Hamilton down¬ ward, has advocated the same general truth ; and that has been acquiesced in by every enlightened statesman, till within a short period. But now that doctrine is repudiated by the Administration. The Presi¬ dent of the United States, his Secretary of the Treasury, and the Com¬ mittee of Ways and Means, have made the financial discovery that a re¬ duction of the tariff will greatly enhance the amount of revenue from im¬ ports. It is true, that they have the operation of the famous compromise act staring them in the face, and contradicting their position. They know that in 1S42, when the duty came down to 20 per cent., the revenue was: reduced to ,f12,700,000; and that by the commencement of cash duties within that year, the year 1S42 was practically a year of five quarters; having all the tevenue of that year, and the payment of bonds given for goods imported the last quarter of the preceding year; and, also, that this revenue would have fallen off still more, had not Congress early in 1841 imposed additional duties upon silks, wines, and several other articles. All this must be known to the Administration : nor can they have forgotten the embarrassed state of the Treasury, and the almost perfect pros¬ tration of every branch of industry at that time. They must also know, that the tariff act of 1S42, relieved the Treasury, and gave general prospe¬ rity to the country. All this must be within their knowledge; and yet, blind to the past, and deaf to the voice of experience, they come forward, and ask us to abandon the policy under which we have enjoyed such unex¬ ampled prosperity, and to follow out a mere abstraction—the dream of some visionary speculators. And can they give us any assurance that their sys¬ tem will work well? Can the Committee of Ways and Means tell us what amount of revenue their bill will yield? They have furnished us with no such estimate. And I presume, if interrogated, the honorable chairman will tell us now, as he did two years ago, that he knew nothing about it, and could form no conjecture satisfactory to himself. In his re¬ port of 1844, which accompanied his tariff bill, we find this frank confes¬ sion : £: It may be expected of the committee that they will make an esti¬ mate of the revenue to be realized under the rates of duty they propose to establish ; but they feel themselves wholly incompetent to do so, to any useful purpose.” He then goes on to say, that all the calculations which have been made by the different Secretaries of the Treasury are mere vague conjecture, not to be relied upon. This was the position of that commit¬ tee at that time, and I will venture to say that the chairman will not im¬ part any more information at this day. Can he give us any assurance that his bill will yield even $20,000,000 of revenue? He cannot. I am aware of the difficulty of making any thing like an accurate estimate on this subject; but from the best information I can obtain. I do not believe that the committee’s bill without tea and coffee will yield more than $20,000,000 at farthest, and with tea and coffee uot more than about $21,000,000 of net revenue. We are then called upon, for the purpose of increasing the revenue, to try an experiment, on the suc¬ cess of which the committee themselves dare not even hazard a conjecture. We know the operation of the present law. We have seen that it will yield from $26,000,000 to $28,000,000 of net revenue; and still we are asked to give up this certainty for an uncertainly, or rather a certainty of success for a certainty of defeat. But we are told that we must adopt the revenue standard, and bring all duties down to the revenue rate. Sir, before examining this boasted reve¬ nue standard, I cannot forbear remarking upon the peculiarity of this language, or rather the great stress which is laid upon it. We hear of revenue, revenue, revenue —as if the great end for which the Gov¬ ernment was instituted was to fill its own coffers. From language which gentlemen employ, we should think that the Government had an in¬ terest distinct from the people, and that the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, the object and the aim of all legislation was to collect money for the Government to expend. Our fathers maintained that Government was instituted for the good of the people; but this old fashioned maxim seems to be inverted, and the policy now is, if I mistake not the signs of 3 the times, to look at the wants of the Government alone. But, sir, I re¬ pudiate this new doctrine. It is monarchical in its character; it is the essence of despotism. The interest of the people should be the great object in view, and the interest of the Government, when it comes in com¬ petition with the interest of the people, should not stand for a moment. But what is the boasted “revenue standard” of which we hear so much? We are told that it is that rate of duty which will give the greatest amount of revenue, and that any rate above that is unconstitutional, as it must be for protection, and not for revenue. That there may be, in the abstract, such a rate, I shall not attempt at this time to controvert. But, sir, in prac¬ tice such a principle does not exist. There are a thousand considerations which affect the course of trade, and so reduce or swell the importation of a given article. Under these circumstances, it is impossible ever to have a constitutional tariff. If we had the necessary information, and should adopt the exact standard to-day, the fluctuations of trade might render it uncon¬ stitutional to-morrow. If the Constitution is violated by imposing a duty which is above this revenue standard, it would be violated by permitting a duty to remain above that standard. According to this modern refinement, it would be necessary for Congress to hold a perpetual session, so as to be ready at all times to increase or diminish the duties, according to the ever variable course of trade. And even then, we should be one quarter at least, behind the requirements of the Constitution; for we should not be in pos¬ session of the necessary facts, until the quarterly returns were made from the custom-house. On this refined theory, we should be in constant pursuit of this igiiis fatuus, called the revenue standard, without ever overtaking it. But there is another fundamental objection to this theory—it discrimi¬ nates in favor of luxuries, and against the necessaries of life. An article which is necessary, will bear the highest rate of duties, because it is a ne¬ cessary. If it be an article which is absolutely indispensable, it will bear almost any rate of duty which can be imposed upon it. But luxuries may be dispensed with, and if their price is enhanced by a high duty, the im¬ portation will fall off, and the revenue will suffer. Take salt for example. It is absolutely necessary—it is indispensable,and will be used at all events, whether the price be high or low. You may impose two per cent., or two hundred, and it will be purchased in nearly the same quantity. The same is substantially true of iron. It enters into general consumption, and cannot be dispensed with. But take the luxuries, the tropical fruits for example; a duty of two hundred per cent, would make a material dif¬ ference in their consumption. These examples will show that this famous revenue principle would operate unjustly, and throw the weight of taxation upon those least able to bear it—the poor and the laboring classes. This revenue principle, as it is called, does not overlook the interest of the great industrial pursuits of the people, but it discriminates against them. Let us look for a moment at the operation of this boasted principle. We will take the articles of salt and iron as an illustration. We will suppose that neither are now manufactured in the country. The revenue principle would require us, at this time more especially, to impose the highest rate of duty—say 200 per cent. This high duty would induce our friends in Penn¬ sylvania and New York to go into the manufacture of iron and salt. The .duty would be highly protective; and the Government, by this policy, would invite investments in these branches of industry. But as soon as they got into successful operation, so as to supply a portion of the home market, and thereby check the importation of these articles, the revenue would fall off, which would be proof demonstrative that the rate was above the revenue standard. What then would be the duty of Congress on this new-fangled theory? Why, they must reduce the rate of duty, so as to in¬ crease the importation of these articles, and thus destroy the capital invested in their manufacture. This is the truly paternal character which gentlemen would have our Government assume! She must invite investments in man¬ ufactures, sustain them in their infancy, and smile upon their early youth; but the moment they arrived at manhood, so as to supply to any con¬ siderable extent the wants of the people, they must be crushed at a blow, that foreigners may enjoy the monopoly of our market. But, sir, although 1 do not allow any definite revenue standard, such as is contended for, 1 believe that no enlightened statesman could sit down to devise a system of finance, without taking into view the condition, situation, and interest of those upon whom the burdens are to fall. True wisdom will not only consult the present, but the prospective,ability of the people to meet the demands of the Government. That system of finance which should destroy the capital of the country, or throw impediments in the way of the industry of the people, and so dry up the sources of revenue for times to come, could not be regarded ns a wise revenue system. If we had an intelligent financier at the head of the Treasury Department, lie would,, as a paramount object, seek to increase the wealth, and develope the pecu¬ niary resources of the people, so that they may be able, from year to year, to make those contributions which the Government may require, and to do it with the least possible sacrifice. It is not enough that you impose a single tax, and collect a revenue sufficient for a solitary year; you must look to the prosperity of the people, and take care that you do not, in obtaining one assessment, impair the taxable properly in future. It is with a nation as it is with an individual—to secure the greatest aggregate of interest for a course- of years, you must, as far as possible, increase the principal. A wise reve¬ nue bill, therefore, must be discriminating in its character; it must foster every interest, and stimulate industry in every department of human enter¬ prise; it must render the nation prosperous, that the people may have the ability to meet every draft of the Government. With these general remarks, I now propose for a moment to examine the bill submitted for our action. It is based upon the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, and hence is founded upon no one fixed principle, but upon a variety of conflicting elements. It professes to aim at revenue- alone, and yet has its list of free articles. Now, I should like to be in¬ formed by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, on what principle he admits any article free of duty, when he maintains that we- must discriminate for revenue alone l Every fiee article creates a necessity for imposing a higher rate of duties upon other articles, and is totally incon¬ sistent with his famous revenue principle. He proposes to impose duties im such a manner as to take the burdens as much as possible from the poor and lay them upon the rich; and yet he ptoposes to impose a tax upon tea. and coffee, which would be emphatically a tax upon persons, and not upon property. The chairman desires to discriminate in favor of necessaries and against luxuries, in favor of the poor and against the rich. And yet, in. carrying out his principles, he imposes a duty of 75 per cent, upon all dis- tilled spirits, which are used by the poor laborers, and suffers wines, which are drank by the fashionables, to come in on a duty of 30 percent. I should like to know the principle on which this discrimination is founded. He reduces the duty on pimento from 121 per cent, to 30. and on cut glass chandeliers from 90 to 30—for the special benefit of the poor, I presume. But the greatest act of kindness, the most striking interposition in favor of the necessaries of life, is a reduction of 75 per cent, on the importation of that indispensable article of life,playing cards! But the honorable Secre¬ tary tells us that we must discriminate in favor of the agriculturists; and yet the committee propose to reduce the duty on cheese from (19 per cent, to 30, on butter from 5S to 20, on beef and' pork from 51 to 20, and on potatoes from 36 to 20. How will the farmers of the West like such pro¬ tection on their beef and pork, or the people of New York on their butter and cheese? How much will the good people of Maine be profited by this reduction of duties on potatoes, an article which is now imported to the amount of )35S,000 worth, and. on the Secretary’s estimate, will be in¬ creased to §258,006 worth ? The amendment, or rather substitute, proposed by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Huxgerford,') is subject to nearly all the objections which can be urged against the bill of the committee. It is true that he provides a specific duty for the salt of New York, and the iron of Pennsyl¬ vania; but most of the other interests are left to their fate. I ask no special protection for any interest in my own State. New England wishes to stand or fall with the rest of the country, so far as protection is concerned. I have as much sympathy for the salt of New York, and the iron of Penn¬ sylvania, as I have for the cottons and woollens of Massachusetts. But if the gentleman from New York intends to sustain certain interests at the ex¬ pense of the rest—if there is to be any thing like bargain and corruption to save the iron and the democracy of those two States—I shall feel justified in employing their own weapons, and turning them against themseives. I will unite with the South, and reduce the duty on iron down to the lowest point. Let gentlemen beware of bargain and intrigue. But, Mr. Chairman, as this bill professes to be founded upon the revenue principle, and is urged upon our consideration on the ground that, it will in¬ crease the revenue, I propose to examine it with reference to its revenue features. I have made a calculation on a list of articles which, under the present law, paid §17,000,000 of the §30,000,000 of gross revenue for the past year; and I find that, according to the bill under consideration, these same articles would pay about ,§9,500,000, showing a falling off of about §7,500,000. Now, sir, I would gladly inquire how this loss of seven and a half millions is to be made up? I shall be told that it will be done by increased importations. There may be some increase on these importations, but I will venture to say that the increase will not be sufficient to make up this large sum of seven and a half millions. The rate which the commit¬ tee imposes upon these articles will average about25 percent.; and in order to bring the revenue up to the present standard, on these articles alone, there must be an increased importation of some §30,000,000—an increase far greater than we have any reason to believe will take place. But this is not all. These duties are now mostly specific, and hence there can be no fraud upon the revenue. But tire committee propose to convert them all into ad valorem duties, and lien.ee the frauds which would be committed 6 upon the revenue will bring the aggregate down below that sum, even if $30,000,000 were added to the imports of these articles. But there is an¬ other important drawback upon the revenue contemplated in this bill. It is proposed to raise the duty on one part of the importations, as well as to reduce it on the other; and it is perfectly evident that, if reducing the rate on one-half of the articles increases the importation of those articles, increas¬ ing the rate on the other will reduce the importations on them. So that what is gained by imports on one part of the list is lost on the other. But, sir, there is another difficulty greater than this. We are not able to increase our imports to the extent that is contemplated. Our imports for the last four years will average a little over $100,000,000. To illustrate the principle we will call our imports $100,000,000, and the present rate of duty 30 per cent.; this will give a gross revenue of $30,000,000. We will suppose that the bill reduces the rate to 20 per cent. Now, to obtain the same amount of revenue, we must import $150,000,000 of goods. To give the same revenue as we have at present, the imports must increase at a greater per cent, than the rate is reduced, because the ad valorems are less productive than the specifics. But the important question is, how are we to pay for this increased importation—this additional $50,000,000 of goods? It is perfectly obvious, that our imports and exports must substan¬ tially balance each other. We import now as much as we can pay for. If we should attempt to import $50,000,000 more than we do at present, the balance of trade would soon be against us, and we should be compelled at once to desist. For the first six months we might have large importa¬ tions, but when the pay day approached, we should find it impossible to send forward enough of our products to meet our indebtedness; and the con¬ sequence would be that specie would be sent abroad. Every man acquaint¬ ed with business knows the effect of this. When specie is demanded for export, the banks are compelled to curtail their discounts, and the whole monetary system of the country is at once deranged; business receives a check, and an inability to purchase ensues. This, of course, will check importations, and hence the revenue will decline. This stagnation of business will first be felt in the Atlantic cities, but it will soon reach the ex¬ treme West; and the scarcity of money, and the reduced price of their great staples, will soon remind them that over-trading is as great an evil as Gen¬ eral Jackson represented it to be; and they will be inclined to say with him and his friends, at that period—“perish credit, perish commerce—those who trade on borrowed capital ought to fail.” Mr. Chairman, I have spoken thus far of the effect of the proposed re¬ duction of the tariff; but that, measure ought not to be viewed alone. We have already passed through this body the Subtreasury bill, which requires that the money of the Government shall be collected in gold and silver, and when collected must be locked up in the vaults of the Government. The necessary effect of this will be, to diminish the amount of circulating medium, and to curtail bank accommodations. For the last year there has been from six to ten millions constantly in the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Treasury in his late communication has told us, that this balance in the Treasury should not be permitted to fall below four millions. Suppose we call the average six millions. Here we have, say, six millions of specie abstracted from circulation at all times, and locked up in our iron safes. Merchants and others, who are, or expect to be, debtors to the Govern- ment, knowing that nothing will be received in payment but specie, must at all times be hoarding up coin against the day of payment. The sum thus held in suspense cannot be less than two millions. In this way eight millions of the specie of the country, being about 10 per cent, of the whole, will be kept out of circulation, and as useless for all purposes of business, as though it were thrown into the sea. By the last bank returns it appears that, at the present time, when our banks are supposed to be in a healthy condition, there are in circulation about 3 dollars of paper to every dollar of specie. Every dollar of specie, therefore, which is sent abroad or locked up in the vaults of the Government, must reduce the circulating medium some three dollars. The eight millions hoarded, either directly or indirectly, by the Government, would diminish the circulation some twenty or thirty millions. The effect of this upon business must be perfectly obvious. Besides, these large imports would, by breaking down our own mechanics and manufac¬ turers, who are now the greatest consumers of imported articles, greatly di¬ minish their ability to purchase; and hence there would be a greater fall¬ ing off of imports. How does the honorable Secretary piopose to dispose of his estimated increase of imports 1 With very few exceptions, he makes room for them by displacing the same amount of domestic fabrics. As far as I have been able to obtain a glance at his estimates—for, though he has caused them to be printed, he has put them only into the hands of a few of his free trade friends; and the Committee of Ways and Means have also cautiously withheld all information from the House—I say, as far as I have been able to obtain a glance at his estimates, he obtains his greatest increase upon articles which are manufactured in this country; and he makes room for the foreign manufacturer hy destroying the domestic. One of the prin¬ cipal grievances complained of by the Secretary in his annual report is, that, by the success of our manufacturers many foreign articles have been dis¬ placed; and he now proposes to break down our mechanics and artisans, our manufacturers and laborers, that we may be dependant upon the old world. This must of necessity produce a stagnation in business, and dis¬ tress among our people. And in this state of pecuniary embarrassment, with means crippled and resources exhausted, he expects that we shall pur¬ chase an increased amount of foreign fabrics. This studied hostility to a great and growing interest of the country, is exceeded by nothing but the consummate folly of expecting to increase the revenue by such means. Under all these circumstances, it would be impossible to import to the ex¬ tent required to give the estimated revenue. The great industrial interests of the country are so blended, so depend¬ ant upon each other, that the prosperity of all is required to give full success to either. When the country is generally prosperous in other pursuits, there will for the most part be large importations from abroad, and hence an abun¬ dant revenue; but whenever there is a stagnation in business at home, our im¬ ports are checked. It is not the rate of duty so much as the ability to pur¬ chase, which governs this matter. This position is strikingly illustrated by the fact that, in 1842, when the duties were much less than they had been for more than twenty years, our imports were less than they had been for twelve years. There was, at that time, a great temptation to import. The duties were low, and every merchant believed that a revision of the tariff, which must at that time take place, would increase the duties in a greater or less degree. And yet the imports for that year fell off, from the obvious reason, that the stagnation of all business destroyed the ability to purchase. Thus, sir, from every view of the subject, we are constrained to believe, that the Administration will be wofully disappointed, if they expect such tin increase of imports as will give them the needed revenue. The coun¬ try is not able to meet such a drain, as these excessive imports will make upon their resources. Importations will not materially increase, and hence the revenue must of necessity fall off. The pioposed bill, instead of giving more revenue, will, I am persuaded, give several millions less than the pre¬ sent law; and will bring on that general commercial and governmental embarrassment, which would be felt throughout the length and breadth, of the land. And, Mr. Chairman, it- must be remembered that, while we are thus tampering with the revenue, our expenses are, at least, to be doubled. The estimates sent in in the early part of the session amounted to 825,518,873; but a recent estimate from the Treasury Department has added to this sum, $23,952,904 more, making the gross sum of $49,471,777; and those who are best acquainted with the subject, are satisfied that these estimates are. too low. From the facts which are developing themselves from day to day, the marching and counter-marching of volunteers—the calling out and dis¬ missing of the militia—I have no doubt but that the expenditures, should the war continue to the end of the year, will exceed the estimates by some millions. And how is this expenditure to be provided for? I have ex¬ amined with a good degree of attention a report of the Secretary, transmit¬ ted by the President to the Senate, June 1(5,1S46; and I must be permitted to say, that it is one of the most extraordinary documents that ever emanated from llie Executive Department. The Secretary estimates the deficiency at the close of the coming year, as we have already seen, at ,$23,952,904. And how does he provide for this? Why, he tells us, that according to his former estimate there will be in the Treasury, at the close of the year, §4,- 332,441, and tin's will reduce the balance to $19,(320,463. He next in¬ forms us that, in his annual report, when he was laboring to show that the present tariff was too high for revenue, he under-estimated the revenue from the present law $4,000,000 , which sum will reduce the deficit to $15,620.- 463. But in the very next breath he informs us, that at least $4,000,000 should always remain in the Treasury ; and hence that the deficit should he carried up again to $19,(520,4(53. The Secretary next makes the extra¬ ordinary statement, that the bill reported by the Committee of Ways and Means will produce $26,000,000 of nett revenue, and that the changes which he propose to that bili will yield $4,034,057 more, making a nett revenue of §30,034,057, a sum $5,534,057 more than the existing law would yield—and so would reduce the deficiency to $14.0S6,406. He re¬ lies upon (he warehousing system for another million, and expects half a million of increase from the reduction and graduation of the price of the public lands. These resources will bring down the deficit $12,586,406. This is the strange financial scheme of the honorable Secretary ! The proposed tariff bill does not go into operation till the 1st of December, 1S46, and how the warehousing system, then to take effect, can increase the reve¬ nue, is more than 1 can comprehend. He proposes in his report that the goods warehoused should remain without paying duties, till they are taken out for use. But his principal argument for the warehousing system is, that under that system large amounts of foreign goods would be brought to 9 this country, and then re-exported when they were wanted for this foreign trade, in which case no duties would be paid, but only the expense of stor¬ age. And yet the Secretary proposes to increase the revenue one million of dollars in the first seven months of its operation. It is true, that he ad¬ mits that “ the introduction of the warehousing system might diminish the revenue during a portion of the first year succeeding its adoption, but that it would add $1,000,000 per annum to the permanent annual revenue from customs is not doubted.” This is the statement of the Secretary in his ■own language. He admits that for the first year, or part of the first year, it would diminish the revenue ; and because he thinks it will ultimately in¬ crease it, he feels justified in taking §1,000,000 into his first year’s ac¬ count. Nor am I able to perceive how graduating and reducing the price of the public lands will increase the revenue. The lands are now offered at §1 25 per acre. It is proposed to reduce them to §1, then to T5 cents, then to 50 cents, then to 25 cents; and if they are not taken at that, to give them to the States or to settlers. Now, is it at all probable that there will be any great rush for lands at §1 per acre, when the purchaser knows that waiting a short time he can obtain the same lands at To cents, or 50 cents, or even 25 cents per acre? In fact, the idea of increasing the revenue from the warehousing system, or the graduation system, is too ridiculous for be¬ lief ; and I doubt whether any other Secretary could be found who would risk his reputation on such a conjecture. Nay, I do not believe that any member of this House can be found, who will endorse such wild extrava¬ gance. But the crowning glory of his scheme, and that which sets his financial skill in the clearest light, is his schedule A,- appended to his letter. This is truly a fiscal curiosity. The honorable Secretary in his annual re¬ port has assured us, that “ experience proves that, as a general rule, a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem will yield the largest amount of revenue.” But this statement is not only contradicted by the experience of our own country, but. the schedule which he submits gives the lie to his declaration. The first article in his list is distilled spirits . He sets down the present import at §1,065,375, under a duty of 180 per cent. The committee pro¬ pose a duty of 75 per cent.; but the Secretary thinks this too low for reve¬ nue, and hence carries it up to 125 per cent., and so gains, by some means or other, §702,6S7 of revenue more than the committee, though in fact, according to his own figures, he loses §210,856 from the present revenue. He supposes that the committee by reducing the duty from ISO per cent, to 75 per cent, will increase the importation §340.000; and that he, by reducing the rate from ISO to 125 per cent., will increase the importation §300,000. Now, I desire to know by what rule this increased importation is calculated. The committee reduce the rate 59 per cent., and thereby increase the importa¬ tion 31 per cent.; but the Secretary reduces the rate only 31 per cent., and in¬ creases the importation 28 per cent. I say 1 should like to be informed by what rule in mathematics this result is obtained. By the old fashioned rule of proportion, the case would stand thus : As 59 is to 31, so is 31 to 16. But ac¬ cording to the honorable Secretary’s arithmetic, it would stand thus: As 59 is to 31, so is 31 to 2S—being an error of 421 per cent. This example shows that there is no principle adopted by the Secretary, but that he sets down numbers just to suit his own fancy. But the next article shows this still more clearly. He sets down the importation of cordials 'for the last year at §29.788, paying a duty of 41 per cent. The committee raise tire. 10 duty to 75 per cent., and by so doing, according to the Secretary’s esti¬ mate, increase the importation from $29,78S to $54,7S8. Here we have a striking example of mathematical and financial calculation. The great ar¬ gument for the reduction of duties is, that it will increase importations ; but here we have the importations nearly doubled by carrying the duty up from 41 to 75 per cent. This is sufficiently ridiculous. But it is said to be a poor rule which will not work both ways. The rule of the Secretary has this recommendation. The committee, as we have already said, by rais¬ ing the duty from 41 to 75 per cent, increase the imports from §29.000 to $54,000; but the honorable Secretary, by reducing the rate from 41 per cent, to 40, increases the imports from $29,000 to $129,000; and by this operation adds §10,824 to the revenue ! According to his table, there were import¬ ed last year, sweetmeats, &c., to the amount of $44,000 ; these paid a du¬ ty of 25 per cent. The Secretary carries the duty up'to 40 per cent, with¬ out checking the importation in the least, and so gains $4,371 in revenue. Various kinds of fish preserved in oil were imported last year to the amount of $83,000. The present duty is 20 per cent., but the Secretary doubles it, and makes it 40, without reducing the import one particle, and gains $8,- 248 in revenue. But on the article of potatoes, which were imported to the amount of $58,000, he proposes to reduce the duty from 36 per cent, to 30 per cent., and thereby swells the import from $5S,000 to $20S,000; and gains more than $10,000 to the Treasury. On raw hides and skins, and quicksilver, the duty is now five per cent., the Secretary doubles it, and obtains $195,000 of revenue, without checking the importation at all. On rea and coffee, which are now free, he imposes a duty of 20 per cent., but does not diminish the quantity in the least. The same is true of almost every other free article which he proposes to tax. But the moment he re¬ duces the duty upon one article, he increases the importation immensely.. Cut glass was imported last year to the amount of $5,159, at a duty of 66 percent. Mr. Walker reduces the duty to 40 per cent., and the import immediately goes up to $155,159, and he secures nearly $16,000 in reve¬ nue by the operation. On glass tumblers, by reducing the duties he car¬ ries an import of $790 up to $100,790; but on meats, poultry, &c., he raises the duty from 25 per cent, to 40, and upon manufactured tobacco from 2S to 40, without diminishing the imports to the amount of a single mill. The Secretary sets down some thirty articles where the duty was reduced by the committee, and where he restores the rate to what it is in the ex¬ isting law ; and still is so wonderfully skilful, that he increases in every in¬ stance the amount of revenue. What I have given is a fair specimen of this extraordinary document. I wish to speak respectfully of whatever ema¬ nates from the Executive Department, but I do not believe that there is a chairman of a committee in this House, who would risk his reputation in putting forth such a paper. I venture to predict that there is not a gentle¬ man upon this floor who will undertake to defend this extraordinary docu¬ ment. No man who is acquainted with the subject, will place the least re¬ liance upon the calculations it contains. It is founded upon no principle, is sustained by no experience, and in fact deserves no consideration. But still this report of the Secretary is valuable in one respect. It shows the extremes to which he is driven, and the utter folly of discarding all ex¬ perience, and substituting mere abstractions. No man, as it seems to me,