SPEECH 
 
 HON. T. H. BAYLY, OF VIRGINIA, 
 
 THE HARBOR BILL, 
 
 AND IN REPLY TO THE HON. C, HUDSON, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 
 
 CORN TRADE OE ENGLAND. 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1846. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 OFFICE OF BLAIR AND RIVES. 
 
HARBORS AND RIVERS. 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on every principle of construction applicable to our 
 the state of the Union on the bill making appro- Constitution, an implied newer must not be a dis- 
 priations for certain Rivers and Harbors— tinct, independent, and substantive prerogative,but 
 Mr. BAYLY rose and said: I have very little « must be secondary; such as it is fair to presume 
 to say, Mr. Chairman, upon the bill before the was meant to be conferred by implication. Is the 
 committee. The subject is one with which the power in question of that secondary character ? Is 
 country, for a long time, has been familiar, and it not a distinct, independent, and substantive pre- 
 the opinions of nnjst persons are made up in refer- rogative ? It seems to me that there cannot be two 
 ence to it. I have never thought that this Gov- opinions on this point. The second test to which 
 eminent had power to carry on a system of inter- I re f" er is l his: A power claimed by implication, as 
 nal improvements; and 1 have always been of a means of executing a power expressly granted, 
 opinion that it would be inexpedient, if the power must > m i |3 nature, be inferior or subordinate to 
 existed. means expressly granted to execute the same 
 
 The Government of the United States is one of power. For you cannot suppose when die Con- 
 delegated powers; and by the provisions of the vention granted expressly inferior means, diat 
 Constitution itself, it is declared that all powers they meant to confer, by implication, those in their 
 not delegated are reserved to the States or the character superior. To show that the power in 
 people. The Constitution not only contains a del- question is not of this inferior class, I have nothing 
 egationof powers, but also of means to execute to dobutto refer to theConstitution,whichisfull of 
 them; and the delegation of one class of means, enumerated means of executing granted powers, 
 according to the most familiar rules of construe- °* , a vast u e al less consequence than the one now 
 don, excludes the idea of an intention to delegate claimed. 
 
 any other. These are positions which no Repub- -Ltd u s examine this question a little more in 
 lican, who understands the first principles of his detail. The power in question is sought to be de¬ 
 creed, will dispute. Then the inquiry arises: Is rived from various sources. In the language of 
 the power to carry on a system of internal im- Mr. Clay, “it is a vagrant power”—now seeking 
 provements to be found among the powers ex- ? habitation in one clause of the Constitution, now 
 pressly granted to Congress? This is not pretend- jn another, and, in truth, having a legitimate home 
 ed. Is tt enumerated among the specified means jo none. Wot to detain the committee in an exam- 
 to execute the granted powers? Neither is this ination of all the fanciful sources from which gen- 
 pretended. It is not granted in express terms flemen attempt to derive this power, let us exam- 
 eitlier as an end or a means. And it was not in- me the two from which it is most generally 
 advertence that it is so. On the contrary, a mo- thought to flow. 
 
 tion was made in the Convention which framed The first is the power to “lay and collect taxes, 
 the Constitution to grant the power, and it failed, duties, imposts, to pay the debts and provide for 
 And now gentlemen seek to confer upon the Gov- the common defence and general welfare of the 
 eminent, by construction, what the Convention United Slates; but all duties, imposts, and excises, 
 refused to confer by express grant! shall be uniform throughout the United States.” 
 
 But gentlemen do not contend that the power to It is insisted,that under this clause Congress can 
 carry on a system of internal improvements is do anything that can be done by money, which in 
 conferred by express grant. They claim it as an its opinion will provide for the general-welfare. In 
 implied power. There are two tests of implied other words, the power is sought to be derived un¬ 
 powers, either of which is fatal in tills case. Upon der what is well known as “ the general-welfare” 
 
4 
 
 doctrine. There is a very short answer to this 
 whole doctrine, which is perfectly conclusive. 
 The Constitution was designed as a restraint on 
 Congress; to fetter discretion; to confine it within 
 narrow and prescribed limits: in a word, as an ex¬ 
 act measure of the powers of Congress. But this 
 doctrine makes “ the discretion of Congress, and 
 not the Constitution, the measure of its power.” 
 If this docrine is true, nearly every other clause of 
 the Constitution is surplusage; for there is very 
 little pertaining to Government which may not be 
 done under the sweeping power to provide for the 
 general welfare. But there is nothing superfluous 
 in the Constitution. The words in question, so far 
 from being designed as an enlargement of the pow¬ 
 ers of Congress, were designed as a restriction. 
 Congress not only may not'do whatever it may 
 fancy will provide for the general welfare, but it 
 may not even exercise the powers expressly grant¬ 
 ed for any other purpose than to promote the gen¬ 
 eral welfare. The powers granted are not to be 
 used for special, but general purposes—not for 
 State, but for national purposes. This view alone 
 is fatal to the bill before the House, as it will be 
 to any one which will be introduced with any pros¬ 
 pect of success. Local appropriations will have 
 to be made to secure strength enough to carry any 
 
 The internal-improvement power is also claimed 
 under the clauses authorizing Congress “ to regu¬ 
 late commerce with foreign nations, and among the 
 several States, and with the Indian tribes;” and 
 “ to make all Iaw3 which shall be necessary and 
 proper for carrying into execution the foregoing 
 
 The word commerce, at the time it was used in 
 the Constitution, had a received and recognised 
 meaning. It meant “ trade, traffic,” in an en¬ 
 larged sense. It meant a. pursuit, rather than a 
 thing. It is the business of commerce, and not the 
 means by which it is carried on, which Congress 
 has a right to regulate. Under the power to regu¬ 
 late commerce, Congress may prescribe the terms 
 upon which trade may be conducted with foreign 
 nations, but it cannot prescribe the medium 
 through which it is earned on. It cannot say 
 to a merchant that he shall export his goods in 
 a sloop and not in a schooner—in a sail-vessel 
 and not in a steamboat. But if it were other¬ 
 wise, I would still deny the power in this case. 
 The provision of the Constitution confers power 
 only over things inexistence; and so, if we con¬ 
 cede to it the utmost latitude of regulation, it does 
 not give the power of creation. I deny that Con¬ 
 gress can regulate the means of commerce. But 
 suppose it can, that confers no power to create 
 them. I may admit, for the argument, that Con¬ 
 gress may regulate the shipping of merchants; but 
 does it thereby acquire the power to furnish them 
 with shipping at its own expense ? I deny that 
 Congress has the authority to furnish ships and 
 wagons to carry our produce to market; but it has 
 as much power to do that as it has to furnish ca¬ 
 nals and boats, railroads and cars. Gentlemen also 
 claim the power in question under the clause au¬ 
 thorizing Congress “ to make all laws which shall 
 be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" 
 the granted powers. A stronger argument against 
 
 i this whole doctrine of power by implication could 
 not be devised than from this provision of the Con¬ 
 stitution. If there is any principle of universal ap¬ 
 plication, it is, that where a power is explicitly 
 delegated, the means necessary for its execution is 
 delegated also; and yet so averse was the conven¬ 
 tion which framed the Constitution to powers by 
 implication, that even in this case they resorted to 
 an express grant. Nov/, sir, in all the discussions 
 relative to the clause under consideration, it seems 
 to me that there is a great confusion of ideas. The 
 arguments advanced tend to show that the exercise 
 of the power claimed is necessary for the welfare 
 of the people—for the Government. This might 
 be admitted, and yet it would not advance them 
 one step in the argument. To get power to pass 
 laws under the clause we are discussing, you must 
 show that they are necessary to the ptruecr; and that 
 without them the power cannot be executed. When¬ 
 ever you can do that—whenever you can show that 
 the passage of any particular law is necessary to 
 give vitality to a granted power, without the pas¬ 
 sage of which it would be dormant, then I grant 
 vou have authority to pass it. The necessity must 
 be co-existent with the power. But when you 
 have shown that the exercise of any given power 
 is very expedient or convenient for the Govern¬ 
 ment—nay, I will go further, and say, when you 
 show that it is absolutely necessary for the Govern¬ 
 ment to possess such a power, you have not ad¬ 
 vanced a step towards showing that the Govern¬ 
 ment in fact possesses it. All you have done in 
 such a case is, to demonstrate the propriety of 
 amending the Constitution, so as to confer the 
 power, express provision for which is made. And 
 in the very fact of providing it, the framers of the 
 Constitution showed that they contemplated a state 
 of things in which additional powers would be 
 needed by the Government, that could not be de¬ 
 rived in any other manner. They had no idea of 
 deriving additional powers by the mode of con¬ 
 struction now contended for. 
 
 As an illustration of the sort of necessity which 
 will authorize the passage of a law for carrying 
 into execution a granted power, I will take the case 
 of the Mint. Congress is empowered to coin 
 
 not possible; the necessity is inherent. It is inde¬ 
 pendent of circumstances. It existed the day the 
 Constitution was adopted; it will exist forever. 
 Thus construed, you make the Constitution what 
 it was designed to be—a stable and fixed thing. 
 But construe it as gentlemen would persuade us, 
 and yon make it anything else—as changing as 
 fickle circumstances. 
 
 But not satisfied with the argument derived from 
 the Constitution itself, gentlemen resort to prece¬ 
 dent, and they refer particularly to the establish¬ 
 ment of lighthouses. The power of the Govern¬ 
 ment to establish lighthouses is very questionable. 
 Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison both so regarded 
 it. They did not derive the power to erect them 
 from the power to regulate commerce. They re¬ 
 ferred it to the power to maintain a navy. Light¬ 
 houses were considered as necessary for that pur¬ 
 pose as dock-yards, power to construct which is 
 recognised by the Constitution to be in Congress; 
 and. the power in the case of lighthouses was con- 
 
5 
 
 sitlered as also recognised in the same clause, under 
 the head of <! other needful- buildings.” The lan¬ 
 guage of the Constitution is, “ to exercise exclu- 
 
 ‘ places purchased by the consent of the Legisla- 
 ‘ ture of the State in which the same shall be, for 
 ‘ the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock¬ 
 yards, and other needful buildings.” The con¬ 
 nexion in which these last words are used shows 
 that “ the other needful buildings” referred to such 
 as were in the same category with dock-yards, and 
 needful to the army and navy; and lighthouses 
 were considered as belonging to this class. 
 
 A more striking illustration of the mischief of 
 relying upon precedent, by which the abuse of to¬ 
 day is made the law of to-morrow, could not well 
 be produced than this case affords. In the case of 
 lighthouses, a doubtful power is exerted; this is 
 made the precedent for one still more so; and this, 
 again, is made a precedent, until, by this system 
 of heaping Pelion upon Ossa, you destroy every¬ 
 thing like limitation of power in the Government. 
 
 But, sir, the power to construct internal improve¬ 
 ments is not only not granted in the Constitution, 
 
 a characteristic of the Constitution. “All duties, 
 imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout 
 the United-States.” Naturalization and bankrupt 
 laws shall be uniform. “ No preference shall be 
 given, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, 
 to tile ports cif one State over those of another.” 
 “ Representation and direct taxes shall be appor¬ 
 tioned among the several States according to their 
 respective numbers.” 
 
 These last provisions were designed to 
 equal advantages and to provide against u 
 favors among the several States. But wh; 
 it was in the framers of the Constitution to 
 much pains to secure uniformity in raising rt 
 if they designed to permit inequality into 
 tribution. Practically the same result fi 
 There is as much partiality and injustice 
 
 this whole system; it is the very law of its 
 under it than its share—if 
 
 State c 
 
 thing about it; for they would only get back then- 
 own, diminished by the cost of collection and di: 
 bursement. If no State could receive more than 
 it contributes, it would be better for it to colle- 
 and disburse for itself. If it does receive more 
 than its just proportion, other States will receive 
 less, which would be unjust. So this is a system 
 which, to make it desirable to any you must make 
 it unjust to some. The provisions of this bill sho- 
 tile inequality of the system. It appropriates a 
 million and a half of dollars: and in the Southern 
 States, fifty thousand dollars for Savannah, and 
 twenty thousand dollars for Charleston,* compris 
 the whole of the appropriations from the banks ol 
 the Potomac to the Gulf of Mexico! And thi 
 inequality has existed whenever the system has 
 been in operation, and it will continue as long as 
 it exists. Tiie facts upon this head presented by 
 
 the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Yaxcet,] are 
 
 But, sir, I not only insist that this system is un¬ 
 constitutional, but that, if it were otherwise, it would 
 be inexpedient. This Government could notwisely 
 exercise such power. The country over which we 
 legislate is so extensive, that it is impossible for 
 us to possess the local information necessary for 
 tile judicious exercise of such power. Suppose 
 an appropriation is asked for in Maine, or Wis¬ 
 consin: how can I know anvthinir personally of 
 the propriety of it? Shall I rely upon the Reprc- 
 sentative? He will be interested in misleading 
 
 The natural tendency of such a system is to ex¬ 
 travagance. Such was the case in the Slates where 
 there were guards against it, which do not exist 
 hero. There was the better local information; there 
 was the more direct responsibility growing out of 
 smaller constituencies; there was the safeguard of 
 direct taxation. In the States there was no interest 
 in favor of expenditure, except that which was to 
 profit directly by it. But it is very different here. 
 Allied with the interest to he directly benefited by 
 the expenditure is the tariff interest which is to 
 profit indirectly bv it. With all the powerful 
 guards to which 1 have' referred in the States, the 
 system ran into prnlligacy and ruin. If the sys- 
 
6 
 
 • torn is introduced here, what will he its end ? Can 
 anyone doubt? 
 
 This system will enormously increase Govern¬ 
 mental patronage. Heretofore it has been confined 
 to individuals; and thus confined, we all know the 
 
 ■ influence of it. Introduce this system, and it is 
 extended to districts—to States. Suppose the De¬ 
 mocratic party in the ascendency, or the Whig, 
 and it will be the same with both. The Demo¬ 
 cratic party is in the ascendency. A district is 
 Whig. It gets no appropriation. An election is 
 to come on in another. It is important to carry it: 
 and it gets an appropriation. And look what enor¬ 
 mous discretion this bill confers upon the Execu¬ 
 tive. There is appropriated for the improvement 
 
 ■ of the Ohio river, above the falls at Louisville, 
 #80,000—below the falls, and the Mississippi, 
 Missouri, and Arkansas, #240,000. For harbors, 
 on Atlantic coast,'#20,000,—no place named for 
 this expenditure. Is this such discretion as ought 
 to be conferred upon the Executive ? It is so large 
 as in effect to confer upon it the power of legisla¬ 
 tion. But, sir, I will not pursue this discussion 
 farther. My main design is to reply to the gen¬ 
 tleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Hudson.] 
 
 But permit me to remark, before I dismiss the 
 pbject, that the insidious character of the system 
 is such—it addresses itself so powerfully to the 
 sordid interests of the country—it has in conse¬ 
 quence implanted in it so much vitality, that it 
 has revived again after five Executive vetoes. I 
 greatly fear, like a cat, it has nine lives, and that 
 it will take nine vetoes to kill it. 
 
 When, Mr. Chairman, pending this bill, the gen¬ 
 tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Hudson] com¬ 
 menced his remarks upon the tariff, he was called 
 to order, upon the ground that the subjects of the 
 tariff and internal improvements were distinct. But 
 the Chair decided that the gentleman was in order. 
 An appeal was taken from the decision of the Chair, 
 and it was sustained by a large majority, the party 
 friends of the gentleman voting in the affirmative. 
 I think the decision was correct. The two sub¬ 
 jects are closely allied; and the success of one de- 
 . fiends very much upon the success of the other. 
 
 raising tl 
 
 re always thought that the tariff ques 
 uuu was mure emphatically fought on bills appro¬ 
 priating revenue than upon those raising it. The 
 country universally acquiesces in the propriety of 
 —'-:-r the necessary revenue by imposts. If, 
 ..ire, our expenditures are large, our tariff 
 :t be high. So, on the other hand, it is believed 
 that this nation will never submit to collect more 
 money from the people than is necessary to meet 
 the expenditures. If, therefore, the expenditures 
 are moderate, the tariff must be low. The friends 
 of the protective policy see this; and hence you 
 will find few, if any of them, voting against this 
 bill, or indeed any other appropriating money. And 
 here permit me to remark, that this is one of my 
 strongest objections to the tariff policy. It enlists 
 a large interest in the country in favor of lavish ex¬ 
 penditure, which, but for it, would be the strong¬ 
 est advocate for economy. I feel justified in saying 
 this; for if it was not his interest to be extravagant 
 in the public expenditures, the New Englander 
 .would belie his character if he was not a stickler 
 for economy in his public as he is in his private life. | 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachu¬ 
 setts [Mr. Hudson] lias gone into a very minute 
 examination of the effects which the adoption of the 
 proposed modification of the English corn-laws will 
 have upon our agricultural pursuits, and the influ¬ 
 ence it ought to exert upon our own commercial 
 legislation. He has attempted to show that the 
 agriculturist will not be benefited; and that so far 
 from its inducing us to relax our restrictive sys¬ 
 tem, it affords additional inducements to adhere 
 
 The district which I have the honor to represent 
 is almost exclusively agricultural. I am myself a 
 farmer, and depend—as do nearly the whole of my 
 constituents—upon the produce of the farm for sup¬ 
 port. Our great staples arc Indian corn, wheat, 
 and oats—the importance of tile crops, standing in 
 the order I have named them. In this respect, as 
 shown by the census, my district is a fair prototype 
 of the farming, as contradistinguished from the 
 planting portions of the Union. My constituents, 
 having a deep interest in the questions discussed 
 by the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Hud¬ 
 son,] will very naturally desire to know the views 
 of their Representative concerning them. I have 
 therefore seized upon the first opportunity of 
 making them known. And I am the more anxious 
 to do this, as I consider those of the gentleman, 
 though most erroneous and unsound, yet specious, 
 and calculated to deceive. To such, however, as 
 have extensive access to official documents, and 
 the industry to explore their dry details, the task 
 of exposing them is easy, as I shall attempt to 
 show. But before 1 come to examine the facts and 
 calculation of the gentleman, I desire to make a few 
 preliminary observations. 
 
 In these tariff discussions, notwithstanding the 
 strange features which they constantly present, 
 nothing has struck me more forcibly than the kind 
 tnd paternal solicitude with which gentlemen, not 
 themselves farmers, or representing farming con¬ 
 stituencies, undertake to instruct us in our true in¬ 
 terests. To hear some of these gentlemen, them- 
 
 ilves manufacturers, and representing manufac- 
 
 rers, you would think that all their solicitude was 
 
 r the welfare of the agriculturist. 
 
 It is doubtless very incorrigible in us not to 
 show a becoming gratitude, and very inconsiderate 
 lot to heed such disinterested teaching. But their 
 irguments, at different times, are so contradictory 
 md inconsistent, and they adhere so pertinaciously 
 under every change of circumstances to the same 
 dogmas, that it is impossible for me to confide im¬ 
 plicitly in them. 
 
 In all the tariff discussions which I have heard 
 heretofore, when the policy of unrestricted com¬ 
 merce has been established "upon the great princi¬ 
 ples of political economy, and their harmony with 
 the law of nature shown in the variety of climes, 
 soils, and pursuits, the friends of protection have 
 admitted the soundness of the theory, when prac¬ 
 tised upon by the leading nations of the earth. 
 But they denied that this would ever be the case, 
 and declared they were only opposed to that one¬ 
 sided free trade by which restrictions were met 
 with relaxations. Let the leading commercial na¬ 
 tions, they have said, set the example of free trade, 
 and we will follow it. We admit the advantages, 
 
8 
 
 the'Iakes, and the canals which connect them and 
 the St. Lawrence, to the ocean, is long and circui¬ 
 tous; much more so than the one through the 
 States. It closes early in the winter, and does not 
 open, in its full extent, until late in the spring, 
 upon the approach of warm weather, which is un- 
 propitious to the shipment of breadstuff's and meat. 
 The exports from Canada are chiefly of heavy ar¬ 
 ticles, mostly breadstuff's and timber. The imports 
 in bulk are comparatively small, consisting only 
 of supplies for themselves, and such small articles 
 ’ as they can smuggle into the United States. Con¬ 
 sequently, nearly the whole freight is on the out¬ 
 ward voyage. Thus the advantages of the indirect 
 trade are not very great. This is shown by the 
 fact, that direct exportations take place to a con¬ 
 siderable extent. Besides, when the export takes 
 place through Canada, it is carried exclusively in 
 English bottoms, and our navigation loses the ad¬ 
 vantage of carrying to market our own produce. 
 I admit that the indirect trade through Canada 
 has been of much advantage to the farmer, and 
 compensated to some extent for the injurious 
 effects upon us of the sliding scale. But I deny 
 that the advantage, even to him, is anything like 
 as great as a free trade in corn, to say nothing 
 about the advantages which the latter confers upon 
 our navigation. So the farmers need not be fright¬ 
 ened at this part of the gentleman’s exposition. 
 
 2. As to the assertion, that England will be am¬ 
 ply supplied with breadstufls from the continent of 
 Europe, without drawing much of them from us, 
 and at cheaper rates than we can afford: To sus¬ 
 tain this position, the gentleman quotes largely 
 from the return of the British consuls made to their 
 Government in 1840. The history of those returns 
 is this: In the discussions which were taking place 
 at that time in England relative to the repeal of the 
 corn-laws, the apprehension was not so much that 
 the English market would be overflooded with con¬ 
 tinental wheat; but that if the stimulant of protec¬ 
 tion was withdrawn, production would be less at 
 home, and Great Britain could not safely rely upon 
 an adequate foreign supply. It was argued that 
 the only effectual security against scarcity, was 
 the stimulant of protection to home agriculture. 
 To possess itself of full information on this point, 
 the Government directed its consuls, in all of the 
 great grain marts of the continent, to answer the 
 following questions: 
 
 1st. What quantity of grain of each kind could 
 be exported to England from the country or dis¬ 
 trict in which you reside, if the trade in corn in 
 England was made constantly open at a moderate 
 
 2d. What would probably be the average price 
 free on board ? 
 
 3d. What would probably be the freight per 
 quarter to England ? 
 
 4th. Would the exportation be subject to any 
 other charges ? 
 
 5th. Whether, if there was a regular and steady 
 demand in England for foreign corn, the quantity 
 of corn produced in the said country or district 
 would, without much difficulty, and in a short 
 space of time, be materially increased? 
 
 The reply to these questions are contained in the 
 large quarto volume which I hold in my hand. 1 
 
 have examined them with care. As to the quan¬ 
 tities which could be supplied, the following is the 
 summary printed in the gentleman’s speech: 
 
 The aggregate which could be snplied from the 
 continent Is thus put down at 17,779,712' bush¬ 
 els. But let us examine the data upon which this 
 statement is made, and we will find, I think, that 
 greatly exaggerated. Let us lake up the 
 s thus given, one by one. In all the estimates, 
 implicity and ease, I only take wheat. But 
 there are also large importations of rye, barley, 
 oats, beans, &c., imported from the countries in 
 question; but the same reasoning applied to wheat 
 will apply to them. 
 
 '■\l. St. Petersburg. The consul says: “Thedis- 
 of St. Petersburg does not produce grain suf¬ 
 ficient for its own consumption,and the deficiency 
 is supplied from the inland provinces.” Prom 
 this and other portions of his answer, it is evident 
 the consul, in his return for St. Petersburg, in¬ 
 cludes a large district of country, portions of which, 
 in all probability, arc included in the range of other 
 consuls’returns. He puts down the quantity which 
 could be exported to ail foreign countries, not to 
 England alone, at from 175,000 to210,000 imperial' 
 quarters, of eight bushels each. In the table the 
 mean of 192,500 quarters, or 1,540,000 bushels, is 
 given. This quantity is purely conjectural, and is 
 evidently too high. The consul gives the actual 
 exports'from 1830 to 1839, and they are for whole 
 675,400 quarters—yearly average 75,0S0, or 
 140 bushels. 
 
 te entire quantity imported into England from 
 the whole ofllussia in 1840, which was a year of 
 scarcity in England, when upwards of nineteen 
 millions of bushels were imported, was 2,146,104; 
 and, in 1841, when upwards of twenty-one millions 
 imported into England, only 796,792 came 
 
 _ Russia. For the three years ending 1843, 
 
 the average import into England from the whole of 
 Russia was 864,087 bushels. It is therefore evi¬ 
 dent that the amount put down to St. Petersburg 
 alone is much too high. 1 think the committee will 
 agree with me that one million of bushels is a high 
 estimate. It is 400,000 more than the average ex¬ 
 portation from 1S30 to 1839. 
 
 2d. Liehau. The consul says: “Should the 
 weather continue favorable during the harvest 
 time, the quantities gathered for export fromLie- 
 bau and Vindau, may come to the following ex¬ 
 tent, say 30,000 quarters”—or 240,000 bushels, 
 he quantity given in the table. As to the quanti- 
 y of this grain which could be exported to Eng¬ 
 land, the consul says depends upon the demand 
 and the price: “The greatest part of our former 
 iplies were shipped off to Holland and to the 
 ....erior of Russia.” Again, he says: “About 
 thirty thousand quarters of rye have been bought, 
 which, after being ground into meal, is to be ship¬ 
 ped to St. Petersburg.” From this it. is probable 
 that the exports from Liehau are included in those 
 
of St. Petersburg and Holland. However, as I . quarters, winch is 210,000 bushels less than the 
 desire to make an estimate above all cavil, I will j quantity given in my table, 
 leave the amount as stated in the table. j 7th. Konigsburg. This port is on the Vistula, 
 
 3d. Warsaw. It is evident, from the letters of j near its mouth. It draws its supplies from the 
 the consuls, that the same wheat is included in the same region which Dantzic does. The probability 
 returns from Dantzic and Warsaw. is, that the two consuls have included the same data 
 
 Dantzic is at the mouth of, and is the shipping in their estimate. Still, I do not depart from it, as 
 port of the Vistula, upon which, in the interior, I have not and shall not do in any case, except for 
 Warsaw is situated, and which is not navigable the plainest reason. 
 
 except in flat-boats. In answer to the second! 8th. Sleltin. The consul says: “As the crop of 
 question, the consul at Warsaw says: “ The cx- ! ‘ all kinds cf grain is considered this year to be very 
 poise of water carriage to Dantzic, Prussian transit j ‘ favorable in quantity and quality in this part of 
 duty, and charges on shipment, may bo taken at 1 1 Prussia, and also in Silesia, the exportation to 
 12s. per quarter.” The consul at Dantzic says: 1 ‘ Great Britain map, if a moderate duty admits of 
 “The chief export of grain from this port is the j ‘ it, amount to 250,000 quarters.” This is the 
 produce of Poland.” He puts the export at315,000 1 quantity given, and of course a high one. 
 quarters. He forms his estimate upon the three . 9th. IVcmcl. The consul says:The quantity 
 years preceding, during which he says “ the dc- 1 of grain shipped from here last year, (1839,) when 
 mand for England has been considerable.” “ It 1 ‘ the duty averaged very low, was, of wheat, 5,954 
 
 • is to be considered the stock of corn in thiscoun- i 1 quarter's, and it cannot, under the most favorable 
 ‘ try and in Poland had been accumulating three I ‘ circumstances, be expected to exceed that of 1839, 
 ‘ or four years previous to 1838, when the low av- ■ as the demand for grain of all descriptions was 
 
 • crages in Britain were so discouraging for ship- ‘ general throughout even in Russia.” The quan- 
 1 ments; there is, therefore, a greater chance of tity given is evidently too high for an average. 
 
 • less than a larger average nuantitv beiiia- shin- ! Tl, 
 
 'ped.” The consul at Wa 
 
 ports from that place at 300,000 qi 
 saw is not a shipping port. The \ 
 vicinity is carried to Dantzic in flat-boats of rud 
 
 s gated. For these reasons I take tl 
 
 one place only, and I take Dantzic, which is th 
 highest, and, as will be inferred from the languag 
 of the consul, already quoted, probably loo high. 
 
 4th. Odessa. I take the consul 
 I see no reason for discarding it. This gives t 
 the Russian ports a stock of 2,'440,000 bushels fc 
 export to England. That even this estimate i 
 very high is shown by the fact that the averag 
 yearly import into England from Russia, for til 
 three years ending 1813, was only 804,087 bushel: 
 And for the three preceding years, which wei 
 years of high prices, and a'very large demand i 
 England, the annual average was 1.81G.794. At 
 erage for six years 1,310,4-10. And this averag 
 is larger than it had been for the preceding sixtee 
 years. The quantity given in the corrected tabl 
 is upwards of a million of bushels more, and i 
 evidently very high. 
 
 5th. Stockholm. The estimate of the consul fc 
 this port is 1,000 quarters. ^ He says: “ From til 
 
 • vary in quantity and quality more than in an 
 
 • other European country; but takii 
 
 • appears that there are two abundant, three ord 
 
 • nary, and one insufficient harvest.” The expo: 
 of produce, he says, is “ sent chiefly to Norwaj 
 but the quantity of wheat has always been ineoi 
 siderable.” The average export from Swedei 
 for six years, given bv him, ending with 183' 
 
 quantity being ship- j 10th. Elsinore. The consul puts it at 175,000 
 
 -:-the ex- i ouarters. This is evidently much too high. The 
 
 War- j average export from Denmark to all places, for 
 rorn its ; twenty years ending 1839, was 100,730. The av- 
 
 being 800 quarters. Still, as 
 and for the reasons given in 
 will not disturb the consul’s 
 
 6th. Dantzic. Herd take the consul’: 
 which, for tile reasons already give 
 The average exports from 1834 to 1840 w; 
 
 s 270,279 | tioned. Besides, it includes the ei 
 
10 
 
 which can he exported to all countries, and not 
 such only as can be exported to England. The 
 average annual import into England from the whole 
 of Germany for the three years ending 1843, was 
 2,449,690 bushels. For the reasons given, the 
 quantity available for export to England from Ger¬ 
 many ought not to be put even so high as that; but 
 I adopt that amount. 
 
 12th. Palermo. The consul says: “About200,000 
 ‘ quarters of hard wheat might be exported in abun- 
 ‘ dant harvests. In average harvests little or none. 
 ‘ The present production barely serves for the con- 
 ‘ sumption of the present population. Sicily ceased 
 ‘ to be a corn-exporting country in 1826. ” “The 
 1 hard wheat is too hard to be ground by English 
 ‘ mill-stones, and the soft—principally used for 
 ‘ malting maccaroni—will not keep in granaries, or 
 1 bear transportation.” The country is in a mis¬ 
 erable condition, and the people exceedingly op¬ 
 pressed. It is idle, therefore, to expect exports 
 from it. The table, as I have corrected it, stands 
 thus: 
 
 This sum exceeds by 339,772 bushels, as the 
 table hereafter presented shows, the average yearly 
 import into England, for fifteen years, from all 
 countries; and deducting the imports from the Uni¬ 
 ted States, which for the same time have averaged 
 944,536 bushels, and it leaves the entire average 
 import from Europe 8,544,9S2 bushels; which is 
 1,284,308 bushels less than my estimate. But the J 
 gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.H.] complains 
 that in the estimate of the consuls, Riga, Rotterdam, 
 Antwerp, and several other important ports for the 
 corn trade, are not included. The reasons given 
 for not including them are conclusive. 
 
 1st, As to Riga: The consul does not anticipate 
 any supply from this port, for reasons which will 
 be adverted to presently. Besides, the supplies of 
 the port of Riga are drawn from Courland, Lithu¬ 
 ania, and White Russia, from which Liebau also 
 draws her supplies, an estimate for which is given- 
 In addition to this, it has been shown that a larger 
 supply is credited to Russia than she will probably 
 afford. The consuls state that the greater part of 
 the supplies both of Riga and Liebau are shipped 
 to Holland. 
 
 2d. As to Rotterdam: The consul states that her 
 exports are the produce of northern Europe, ware¬ 
 housed in Holland. The export of those countries 
 has already been estimated'. The consul states 
 that the wheat grown in Holland “is not of a qual¬ 
 ity adapted to the English market.” 
 
 3d. As to Antwerp: The consul says what we 
 all know, that Belgium raises no grain for export.- 
 He says: “ The exportation of wheat and rye is 
 •at present (August, 1840,) prohibited; and with 
 ‘ an augmenting population, the quantity of land 
 ‘ cultivated in flax, beet-root, and chickory, which 
 1 is increasing, has so diminished the growth of 
 ‘ corn, that there is a deficiency of produce.” The 
 prohibition of the export of grain from Belgium 
 still continues. As to “ the other places” spoken 
 of, it is impossible to say anything of them until 
 they are named. It is believed that the whole cir¬ 
 cuit of the corn-trade in Europe is included in the 
 table presented, if indeed the same countries are 
 not sometimes included more than once. 
 
 The estimate, even in the table I present, in my 
 opinion, is too high, made so by my too libera! 
 
 This may be tested by a criterion which is pretty 
 conclusive. The three harvests preceding the last, 
 both in England and on the continent, have been 
 very favorable: m England, so much so, that 
 their imports of breadstufls have been compara¬ 
 tively light. The climate is such in the north of 
 Europe, and the grain there grown is of a kind 
 which, in their climate will bear storage for several 
 years. When, therefore, the seasons are favor¬ 
 able and the demand small, the merchants arc in 
 the habit of storing it to a very large extent, very 
 often to the amount of many millions of quarters. 
 The official returns of imports into England, in 
 our library, do not come down later than 1842, 
 But in a paper said to be written by the gentleman 
 from Massachusetts, [Mr. Hudson,] they are stated 
 for 1843 and 1844. I find statements of statistics 
 
 that I always use them with distrust. ' But in this 
 instance I find them to correspond very nearly 
 with those made last .Tune by Sir James Graham, 
 the Home Secretary, in the debate upon the repeal 
 of the corn laws, and I presume they may be re¬ 
 lied on. In 1843, the imports were 7,153,232 
 bushels. In 1844, they were 6,586,158- In 1845, 
 they are supposed to have been somewhat larger. 
 If, therefore, the surplus produced in Europe cx- 
 j cccded these amounts to any considerable extent, 
 
 grain marts. But so far from this being the case, 
 when the late unfavorable harvest happened, the 
 
 England and upon the continent was never known 
 to be so light; so much so, that several of the Gov¬ 
 ernments have prohibited exports of grain. As 
 another proof that the surplus did not exceed the 
 export to England, I may refer to the fact, that, 
 during that time, the average price of wheat on the 
 continent, without freight and charges to England, 
 was 45s. per quarter, or, allowing for exchange, 
 about gl 421 per bushel. This price, which is 
 higher than the general average, is inconsistent 
 with the idea of an accumulated surplus. I think, 
 therefore, that I am safe in saying that the surplus 
 on the continent, in a scries of years, will not ex¬ 
 ceed from six to eight millions of bushels, unless 
 there is a largely-increased production there. Is 
 this probable? "Here, again, I shall resort freely 
 to the information furnished in the returns of the 
 British consuls. 
 
le same land in England 
 1. In England, giving 
 irould receive §15 before 
 Whereas here, giving 
 would receive all over 31 
 only advantage. When 
 m from taxation, our ger 
 advantages in our bays, 
 uch miserable craft as w 
 ussia and Poland, but b; 
 ? Where are our railro; 
 re all, where are our g 
 [Applause.] 
 
20 
 
 Now, sir, let us examine what effect this has 
 had upon prices here; and as I have been dealing 
 only with wheat, I shall confine myself to that, or 
 rather to flour. I confine myself to flour, because 
 the only statement I have of prices for a large 
 number of years contain the price of flour alone. 
 
 The period from the end of 1824 to the 31st of 
 December, 1833, when the first reduction under 
 the compromise act took place, may with propriety 
 be called the era of high duties. During these 
 nine years, as appears by a table published by the 
 United States Commercial and Statistical Register, 
 the average price of flour was §5 36. For the next 
 nine years, when under the operation of the com¬ 
 promise act, the duties were constantly falling, the 
 average was $6 72. And the rise in the average 
 ofwh'eat, corn, &c., was about in the same pro¬ 
 portion. In.the summer of 1842 the present tariff 
 law was enacted. The price of flour in 1841, the 
 year preceding its enactment, was §6 50. In 1843, 
 the year succeeding its enactment, it was §4 44. 
 In 1844, it was §4 50; and last year, until the par¬ 
 tial failure of the European harvest was ascertain¬ 
 ed, it was about the same amount. Average for 
 the three years succeeding the enactment of our 
 present tariff, $4 50. We have thus seen that 
 from 1824, to this time, a period of twenty-two 
 years, the price of flour lias invariably risen and 
 fallen as the rate of duties has risen or fallen. The 
 length of this period precludes the idea that acci¬ 
 dental causes have produced the result. 
 
 But the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. 
 Hudson,] argues that the northern manufacturers 
 afford the best market for our agricultural produce. 
 He goes into a calculation of the amount of their 
 consumption, and insists, if we repeal the tariff, wc 
 will break down the manufacturers and destroy 
 our best market. 
 
 Now, sir, I insist that the market afforded us by 
 such manufacturers as are benefited by the tariff is 
 
 competition. Whereas Western Virginia, in con¬ 
 sequence of its remoteness from the seaboard and 
 the want of intercommunication, is compelled, to a 
 much greater extent, to give employment to resi¬ 
 dent mechanics. 
 
 The same thing is apparent in Massachusetts. 
 I have before me her late census, -taken last year, 
 by her own officers; and without going into a mi¬ 
 nute analysis of it, I assert that even in that State, 
 the number of persons engaged in the mechanic 
 arts, not benefited by the tariff, greatly exceeds the 
 number engaged in manufactures, benefited by it. 
 The following table, taken from that census, com¬ 
 prises nearly all those protected by the tariff: 
 Number of mills, manufactories, Sfc., anti male and 
 female operatives employed therein. 
 
 very inconsiderable. A good deal of false reason- - 
 ing upon this subject has grown out of tiie manner 
 in which the late census was taken. All those en- ; 
 gaged in manufactures and trades are put down - 
 under one head; the factory girl and the ship-car¬ 
 penter are put together. Ill this manner, those 
 engaged in manufactures are put down at 791,749. 
 Now, of these a very large proportion are mechan¬ 
 ics: joiners, ship-carpenters, smiths, masons, brick¬ 
 layers, shoemakers, &c., none of whom are bene¬ 
 fited, as I will presently show, by the tariff. I have 
 made a calculation as to my own State, which es¬ 
 tablishes this beyond question. It is known that 
 most, nay, nearly all, of our manufactures, proper¬ 
 ly speaking, are in Eastern Virginia; and yet in 
 that part of the State there are 222,327 engagid in 
 agriculture, and only 4,800 in manufactures and 
 trades—upwards of 45 to 1. Whereas in Western 
 Virginia, where there are scarcely any manufactu¬ 
 ring establishments, there are 95,944 engaged in 
 agriculture, and 16,676 in manufactures and trades 
 —not quite 6 to 1. This shows that the greater 
 proportion of those in Virginia included under the 
 general head are engaged in trades. The reason 
 of the difference in "Eastern and Western Virginia 
 
 chusetts, 22,199 males, and 18,678 females—total, 
 45,877. Upwards of ten thousand more than in 
 all the manufactures to which I have referred. To 
 show that these people have no interest in a tariff 
 of protection, but, on the contrary, as consumers, 
 are interested against it, nothing more is necessary 
 than to refer to the import and export of boots and 
 
 Excess of exports over imports. $087,503 
 
 Thus it appears there is a large excess of exports 
 ver imports; and the imports consist principally 
 
 if fancy articles, Parisian boots and s 
 ire imported for their fashion, withoi 
 »nce to the price, and would be import 
 
 is this: In Eastern Virginia our shoemakers, hat- how high the tariff. Of the exports, a large por¬ 
 ters, blacksmiths, tailors, &c„ have been driven lion went to the British colonies. It thus appears 
 from their employment by Yankee, not English | that the shoemakers not only can command our 
 
21 
 
 own market, but that they can compete with for- have destroyed your foreig 
 cigners m their markets: and of course they want the consumers which it give 
 no tariff for protection. The prosperity of the hesitate to say they are mu< 
 mechanic depends upon that of the agriculturist, sumers of our agricultural 
 and whatever injures or benefits that pursuit in- manufacturers, benefited b 
 jures or benefits him. tmn. 
 
 jures or benefits him. tion. 
 
 From all this it is apparent that it is absurd to The persons connected with the commerce of the 
 claim all those engaged in manufactures and trades, country afford us a very large market for our pro¬ 
 as created consumers, by the tariff, of agricultural visions: and it is known that the effect of the tariff 
 produce, Why, sir, no nation, blessed with a fer- policy is greatly to injure that pursuit. In the city 
 tile soil and genial climate, which is well cultivated, of New York alone, there, are three thousand car- 
 can find in the persons, necessary to manufacture men, with nearly twice that number of horses, 
 for it, consumers for its agricultural produce. One principally dependent upon the foreign commerce 
 man engaged in manufactures will produce as much of the country. In proportion to the size of the 
 as twenty will consume: and one engaged in agri- cities, there are as many in Boston, Philadelphia, 
 culture will produce as much as ten will consume. Baltimore, and the other towns. It mav safely be 
 In this statement I do not pretend to speak with said, that in the raising anti subsisting of the horses 
 precise accuracy, but in round numbers, and I am engaged in this one brand], as much of the pro- 
 not far from the mark. Even in England, who duce of the farmer is used, as is consumed by all 
 
 riics, and, to a great extent, for the world',"who has country,'which is benefited by a tariff—to say 
 
 foUowing W no industriafp 
 /urges’ 1 —even in England 
 tion of agricultural produc 
 production, tair, if you v