SPEECH S’* 
 
 OF 
 
 HENRY L SEAMAN, OE NEW YORK, 
 
 THE TARIFF. 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives of the U. S., June 29,1846. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. & G. S. GIDEON. 
 
 1846. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 The bill reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, proposing to reduce the duties on 
 imports, being under consideration in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union— 
 
 Mr. SEAMAN addressed the committee as follows: 
 
 Mr. Chairman, if I consulted my own feelings, I should not have tres¬ 
 passed at all upon the time of the committee by taking part in the debate 
 upon the bill now under consideration. But I have a constituency deeply 
 interested in this question, and I cannot consent to record my vole without 
 first assigning the reasons which govern it. I should not dare to return to 
 my constituents without first raising my feeble voice in defence of a system 
 which I honestly believe is guarding their best interest. 
 
 It is not my design, sir, to enter upon the discussion of this question in a 
 captious or partisan spirit. I regard it as a great American question, involv¬ 
 ing common rights and common interests. In the remarks which I will 
 venture to make, I shall not be governed by the theory of any man, or yield 
 to any party dogma. I am not bound by any. I will endeavor to take a 
 common-sense view of the question, and will bring to my aid the experience 
 of over twenty years of active commercial pursuits, and the experience of 
 men now engaged in the foreign commerce of the country. 
 
 Some seven months of the session are now gone, and we are just entering 
 upon some of the most important measures. We are to be kept from our 
 homes to legislate “ under the burning rays of a midsummer’s sun.” The. 
 eyes of our constituents are fixed upon us. From the centre of this Union 
 to its remote border an intense interest is felt in our action. 
 
 I object to the bill and the amendment now before the committee on va- 
 lions grounds, but mainly that it is an entire abandonment of the protective ■ 
 policy. It proposes a system of ad valorem duties in the place of specific • 
 duties, and is not, what it purports to be, a tariff for revenue. 
 
 It is not my purpose, sir, to travel far back and trace out the several reve¬ 
 nue laws, and their effects upon the country. The tariff acts of 1816,1824, 
 182S, and 1S32, and the influence they exerted upon the commerce, agri¬ 
 culture, and manufactures of the country, are matters of history. They are 
 
4 
 
 part of the annals of our day and generation, and their monitory voice bids 
 us beware of the errors of some, and to profit by the wise provisions of 
 others. 
 
 Let us take a glance, Mr. Chairman, at the condition of the country dur¬ 
 ing the few years which preceded the passage of the tariff act of 1S42, And 
 what was its condition? Commerce almost destroyed, our ships lying at 
 our wharves without employment, our manufacturing interests prostrated, 
 and our agricultural productions worth little or nothing; no market, either 
 at home or abroad; the labor of the country fast running down to a level with 
 the pauper labor of Europe; in short, ruin seemed to have fixed its iron grasp 
 upon the energies of the country. The country was largely in debt, and the 
 Government was forced to the necessity of borrowing many millions of dollars. 
 The large surplus in the Treasury when Mr. Van Buren came into power 
 was “ used up.” The duties on imports had been undergoing a slow but 
 gradual reduction, and with it the revenue of the country was diminishing 
 with increased momentum. In short, the country was in a sad condition. 
 I point to the record to prove it. 
 
 What, sir, is the state of things with us now? Look around us. Whence 
 comes all this prosperity? The country teeming with wealth; commerce, 
 manufactures, and agriculture, all prosperous, and each contributing its 
 quota to the national good; labor receiving high wages. Whence comes 
 all this? It is not caused by an unusual demand from abroad for our pro¬ 
 ductions ; not by an inflated paper currency, inflating prices, which our 
 friends on the other side of the house talk so much about; no, sir, it is caused 
 by the blessed influences of the protective policy, fostering and protecting 
 the industry of our people. Will you disturb thisstate of things? Will you 
 experiment upon a nation’s prosperity? It is an old maxim (and all com¬ 
 mon sayings are founded in experience and truth) to leave good enough 
 alone. The thing works well, and my vote shall not be given to disturb it. 
 
 The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Jokes) told us that he would judge- 
 the tree by its fruit; so will I. The tree planted in 1S42 by a wise Con¬ 
 gress has been a most prolific bearer. It has yielded abundant fruit. Then 
 do not let us cut it down. If I mistake not, it has struck its roots deep into 
 the hearts of the American people, and wo be to that man who lays an axe 
 at its root. 
 
 The question is often asked of myself and my honored colleagues, how 
 it is that we, who represent the greatest commercial interests of the country, 
 are found among the supporters of the protective policy? Why, sir, goto 
 
5 
 
 those merchants whose ships whiten every sea, and ask them what they 
 have to say in relation to this question. Have they asked you to change 
 this policy—to repeal the tariff? No, sir; they are intelligent men, of prac¬ 
 tical knowledge, worth more in deciding this question than volumes of such 
 fine-spun theory as the Secretary of the Treasury has given. They know- 
 well that the sun never yet shone upon a people who became distinguished 
 for their commerce, that did not protect and foster their home industry. 
 
 Cast your eye, sir, over the civilized world, “and, without a solitary ex¬ 
 ception , you will find those nations whose industry is protected and nourished 
 occupying an elevated position, and exercising a controlling influence over 
 neifl-hborina- nations: ’ and, on the other hand, in those countries where 
 their peculiar institutions operate to paralyze industry, you will find the peo¬ 
 ple in a miserable and abject state, without commerce and without any of 
 the constituents of national wealth. 
 
 The merchants I have the honor to represent understand this matter, sir. 
 If it is for them you are legislating, wait until they ask you to do it. Bring the 
 war with Mexico, in which we are now unfortunately and unnecessarily en¬ 
 gaged , to a speedy termination, and preserve our present amicable relations 
 with other countries, and the commerce of the country, so far as our present 
 action is concerned, can take care of itself. 
 
 It is said that the protective duties cheapen prices. Why, sir,it requires 
 no argument to demonstrate this. We may reason about the matter, but 
 the fact remains uncontradicled, that the imposition of protective duties is in¬ 
 variably followed by reduced prices of the articles protected, whether it be 
 the coal and iron dug from the bowels of the earth, or the productions of 
 the loom, or any other branch of manufactures. With these lights before 
 us, Mr. Chairman, for one, I am not disposed to grope in the dark mazes 
 of theory. I know that the doctrine is ridiculed; but what are the facts? 
 The first package of domestic calicoes I evei saw for sale in the city of New 
 York was in the year 1824 : it was a common blue print, and was sold for 
 something like thirty cents per yard ; and at the same time a better article 
 in every respect (except in the thickness of the cloth) could be purchased 
 of English manufacture at less price. Now, sir, you can buy an article of 
 our own manufacture, superior in every respect, for twelve and a half cents 
 per yard. It is a little singular, but I recollect it very well, that my friend 
 and colleague, (Mr. Hungerford,) who introduced the amendment now 
 before the committee, purchased some of these very goods; and I would 
 have listened to him with great pleasure, when he took the floor, if he had 
 
6 
 
 .told us what produced this great diminution in price. I claim it to be home 
 competition, induced and fostered by protection. 
 
 I will take another article, sir—that of Kentucky jeans—which enters 
 largely into the consumption of the country. What has been the effect of 
 protection upon that article? In 1834 they were worth one dollar per yard; 
 in 1836, eighty cents per yard; in 1838and 1839,sixty-five cents per yard. 
 A better article was exhibited at the Fair in this city at thirty-seven and a 
 half cents per yard. I could go on and enumerate a variety of other arti¬ 
 cles, the manufacturing of which has been commenced in this country 
 within the last twenty years ; but I refer to these as illustrative of all the 
 other varieties. 
 
 I take now another branch of our manufactures, and one which is be¬ 
 coming of very great importance to us. I allude to flint glass. Sir, no 
 one could have visited the Fair without being struck with the richness and 
 variety of the specimens there exhibited. I hold in my hand a memorial 
 of five hundred operatives in flint glass, praying Congress that the duty- 
 imposed on flint glass by the tariff of 1S42 may remain unaltered, or if al¬ 
 tered, to be specific. 
 
 When the tariff went into operation in 1842, we had only four of these 
 establishments in all the country. They were just gasping for breath, borne 
 down by foreign competition. The country was flooded with an indifferent 
 article of German, French, and English manufacture. Another year and 
 not one of these establishments would have been left in the country. Now, 
 sir, what is their condition, under the fostering influences of this much 
 abused and misunderstood protection ? Why, they have increased fivefold 
 in different parts of the country, producing annually six millions of dollars, 
 employing over six thousand persons ; their wages one-third higher than in 
 1842; and furnishing all the varieties of the article, fiom the commonest 
 tumbler to the richest cut glass, at thirty per cent, less than they could be 
 purchased in LS40 and 1841, consuming three-fourths of all the Missouri 
 lead and thousands of pounds of potash. Every article used in the manu¬ 
 facturing of glass is of American production. 
 
 There is one other branch of manufactures to which I wish to revert, 
 and it is one but little known, although no one could have visited the Fair 
 without noticing the beautiful specimens there exhibited. The article X 
 allude to is the manufacturing of ostrich feathers into brushes. It is only 
 some ten years since this article was first introduced into this country, 
 and we are indebted to the “mechanical contrivance” of an American 
 pitizen for the perfection which the manufacture of this article has reached.. 
 
7 
 
 ' The feather of which these brushes are made is not the feather of the 
 African ostrich, which is an article of ornament, but of the South American 
 bird, and which is used only for the manufacture of brushes and articles of 
 that kind. If the bill before us becomes a law, it will impose the same 
 duty on the feather as on the brush, and the American article will be driven 
 out of market. The Gazette and Times, published in the city of New 
 York, has been sent to me, and it contains an article on the manufacture of 
 these brushes. I will send it to the clerk’s table that he may read a part of it: 
 
 “ Whatever praise may have heretofore been awarded to American ingenuity and enterprise, 
 those are now completely obscured by foreign skill and pertinacity: at least such would be the 
 natural supposition, judging from the conduct of some of our legislators at Washington. For¬ 
 eign merchandise and foreign agents have had for some time free ingress to the rooms of the 
 Committee of Ways and Means, while .American manufacturers and .American products have 
 been as carefully excluded. The desire would seem to be to care for and protect foreign inter¬ 
 ests rather than those of our own country. The imported feather brush is a very bungling, un¬ 
 substantial, and comparatively useless affair, and, being unsaleable, does not enter at all into 
 competition with the.American article. The duty on the raw material, therefore, is, in effect, 
 so much tax on Mr. Steele’s manufacture, and, consequently, on all its consumers; and it is the 
 more unjust, because it does not discriminate between the African ostrich feather, which is an 
 article of luxury—and very few of which are used in the manufacture of the brush—and the 
 
 which forms the principal staple of Mr. Steele’s business. 
 
 “ In order to set this in the strongest light before the Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. 
 S. made a visit, some weeks since, to Washington, with a view of exhibiting to them some 
 specimens of his work, that the differences in the material and the unjust operation of the duty 
 might at once become visible to the eye as well as to the understanding. He was, however, 
 rudely repulsed by the chairman of the committee, who would not deign to look at these speci¬ 
 mens of .American industry and skill, nor hear a word of personal explanation in relation to 
 them; and this, too, as before stated, while the agents of foreign manufacturers were allowed to 
 exhibit their wares in any quantity, and to tell such stories as might advance the interests they 
 represented. 
 
 “ But the case of Mr. Steele is by no means a singular one. Hundreds of similar instances 
 have occurred since the commencement of the present session of Congress.” 
 
 Of course, Mr. Chairman, I cannot vouch for the correctness of the ar¬ 
 ticle which has just been read. Mr. Steele is a gentleman of veracity, and 
 entitled to the respect of every member of this House. I will only add, 
 sir, that it agrees, substantially, with what Mr. oteele told me before he left 
 this city. 
 
 I will revert to one other branch, and by no means an unimportant one. 
 1 allude to hatters’ furs when on the skin. Under the tariff of 1842 they 
 are admitted at a duty of five per cent., and the manufactured article is pro¬ 
 tected by a duty of 25 per cent. The bill before us proposes to equalize the 
 
duty at 10 per cent., thereby removing all protection to the manufactured 
 article. The effect upon this branch of our manufactures cannot but be 
 disastrous. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have said that I would bring to my aid, in the discus¬ 
 sion of this question, the experience of merchants now engaged in the for¬ 
 eign commerce of the country. I have had personal interviews with many 
 gentlemen engaged in the importation of goods of all kinds, and from all 
 countries; and, sir, I find but one opinion in relation to the bill before the 
 committee; it is condemned by all of them. Even those who do not oppose 
 a modification of the act of 1842, are opposed to any increase of duty upon 
 the raw material used by our manufacturers, and to the system of ad valorem 
 duties, which the bill now before us proposes to establish. 
 
 I have before me, Mr. Chairman, a large number of letters from gentle¬ 
 men engaged in commerce, containing information on the different branches 
 of manufactures, as connected with the commerce of the country. I could 
 make valuable extracts from all of them, but it would be consuming more 
 of my time than I am disposed to devote to them. But, sir, some of these 
 letters contain information so important to us, at the present moment, I will 
 ask the attention of the committee to some few extracts from them. 
 
 I do indeed wish, sir, that the Secretary of the Treasury had had a few 
 of them before him when he compiled the valuable document” he has 
 published to the world. I must take this occasion to say that, in my opin¬ 
 ion, and I believe it is the opinion of most practical men, that there 
 never issued from the press in this country a work so full of error, more 
 puerile or fallacious; and, sir, I am astonished that it should have emanated 
 from such a high quarter. Why, Mr. Chairman, a second-rate Pearl street 
 clerk can point out its fallacies. 
 
 I have here an exceedingly well written letter from an importer of French 
 and Italian goods in the city of New York. I will read a paragraph from 
 ir. The writer says that in early life he “ became a convert to free trade, 
 but more mature reflection, aided by observation and experience of the pro¬ 
 gress of affairs in our country, brought me to the conclusion that, though 
 free trade is beautiful in theory, the protective policy is the true one to de¬ 
 velop the resources and prosperity of the country; and this has been my 
 opinion for the last ten or fifteen years, during which period I have been en¬ 
 gaged in the importing business, and have had no interest in any manufac¬ 
 turing establishment or product. My belief is, that a large majority of im¬ 
 porting merchants in this city prefer to have the tariff remain as it is, rather 
 
than have it much reduced, especially if the specific principle is to be aban¬ 
 doned.” 
 
 The writer then goes on, and says that a reduction of the duties would 
 cause a large increase of imports. Our markets would be overstocked, and 
 the business of the country would be disturbed by an export of specie. It may 
 be said that our exports will increase in proportion. Here is the mistake. 
 Europe will only take of our productions what they need, and that without, 
 any reference to our tariff. If the supply is excessive, prices go down. 
 Would it then be to the interest of the farmers, think you, sir, to have the 
 prices of their produce fixed by the export rates? Will it not be better for 
 them to have the various branches of our manufactures protected and flour¬ 
 ishing at home, and thus give them a market for their bread-stuffs and pro¬ 
 visions? Certainly, sir, the home market is the best for the farmer. If we 
 look to foreign countries to consume our agricultural productions, they can 
 only be sent there when prices are low at home, and the comparatively 
 small amount which is sent abroad will, in a great measure, determine the 
 prices of the immense amount consumed at home. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, a few days since I received a communication from an in¬ 
 telligent merchant in the city of New York, inviting my attention to the 
 carpeting manufactured annually in the United States. I had no concep¬ 
 tion of the extent of this manufacture. There are some interesting facts 
 connected with it, to which I would call the attention of the committee. 
 The estimated number of yards of carpeting now manufactured per annum 
 in the United States is 10,5S0,0S5. The value of this is $6,583,890. 
 Wages paid per annum, $3,174,257. Consumption of South American 
 and Smyrna wool per annum, 24,6S7,631 pounds; equal to full cargoesfor 
 eighty to one hundred vessels. The freight and primage, at 1|- cent per 
 pound, is $524,025 14. The number of persons employed or dependant 
 upon this braneh of manufactures is 35,000. The number of small manu¬ 
 factories, with not more than two to ten looms each, 250. Should Congress 
 alter the existing tariff, it is all important to the carpet manufacturers to 
 have the duty specific; indeed, it is quite as much'so as to the growers of 
 sugar and manufacturers of iron. 
 
 The amendment offered by my colleague will break up, root and branch, 
 every manufactory of carpets in the United States. He proposes to reduce 
 the duty one-half on the manufactured article, and to increase the duty 
 twenty-five per cent, upon the raw material. Why, sir, this is an alarming 
 feature in the bill. Is this Congress ready to cast upon the wide world thir- 
 
10 
 
 ty-five thousand persons, whose united wages amount to near three millions 
 and a quarter annually, and many of these persons with families dependant 
 upon them? And, Mr. Chairman, when you shall have done this, you 
 will only have touched a very small fraction of the manufacturing interests 
 of the country. 
 
 I have also before me a letter from a highly respectable constituent, call¬ 
 ing my attention to another important branch of our manufactures; and one, 
 sir, the importance of which is but little understood. I refer to articles made 
 of bone, horn and horn tips, tortoise shell, mother of pearl, ivory, and the 
 different varieties of fancy wood. Very few of these articles are produced 
 in this country, and of those produced here the quantity falls greatly below 
 the consumption. The bill before us discriminates between the raw mate¬ 
 rial and the manufactured article. But, sir, the duty on the first is too high, 
 and too low on the latter. The effect of this will be to give the foreign 
 market to the manufacturers of other countries, who receive the raw material 
 free of duty. 
 
 Allow these articles to come to us free of duty, as the most of them now 
 do, and you enable us to give employment to many thousands of our peo¬ 
 ple, and to compete with the manufacturers of other countries all over the 
 world. Why, sir, this House is not aware, and the country is not aware,, 
 of the growing importance of this trade. Large amounts are annually ex¬ 
 ported to Mexico, South America, and the more distant regions of the globe. 
 The effect of the bill before us could not have been understood by my col¬ 
 league; should it become a law, it will break up a valuable branch of our 
 industry, and which has been many years growing into importance. 
 
 I have, sir, a letter from one of the largest importers in the city of New 
 York, in which he says, “ that nine-tenths of the American importers are 
 in favor of specific duties—they are a great protection against frauds. To-, 
 honest importers it is not so material what the duties are, provided they are 
 collected of all alike ; that under an ad valorem system I see not but that' 
 honest men must give up the business; they cannot contend with the frauds 
 which will be practised.” The writer then describes a case wherein an at¬ 
 tempt was made to defraud the revenue, during the past winter, of eighteen 
 thousand francs in one invoice. Such facts as these are worthy of consid¬ 
 eration, and should lead us to be cautious in our legislation. 
 
 I will ask the attention of the committee to one more of these letters, 
 and will pass by the others, although I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that 
 the information they contain is valuable. The writer says: 
 
11 
 
 ‘‘ The most important change which is proposed, is the ad valorem duties 
 on silks, instead of specific. This by all means should be opposed, as ad 
 valorem duties would again encourage frauds in the shape of undervalua¬ 
 tions, and which I would defy the Government to prevent. Since we have 
 had the specific system, the value of goods is more uniform, and the most; 
 beneficial results have followed.” 
 
 This, sir, is the opinion of one of the largest importers of silks in the 
 United States ; the senior member of the firm is a French gentleman of the 
 first respectability. 
 
 “ The establishment of manufactures in a country possessing the natural 
 advantages essential to success, tends directly to stimulate industry of the 
 most useful, as well as the most productive kind. Science is encouraged to 
 lend its aid to the arts; improvements in machinery tends to abridge labor, 
 and reduce the cost of production.” 
 
 I noticed in a late number of the Union,published in this city,an article 
 taken from the London Standard, in which it is admitted that “ nearly all 
 the recent mechanical contrivances introduced into factories are of Yankee 
 invention.” This, sir, is certainly true ; and what was it that stimulated, 
 the ingenuity of the American people, but the protection afforded against 
 competition from other countries. The nations of the Old World had the 
 start of us in time ; they possessed unlimited capital, and had the markets 
 of the whole world, including our own, at their command. The protective- 
 policy. so wisely adopted by us, invited capital into this department of our 
 industry, and the “mechanical contrivances,'" diminishing the cost of pro¬ 
 duction, is the cause of the diminished price of all protected articles; and it 
 is this, sir, which enables the “poor man ” to clothe himself and family sg- 
 cheaply. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we have heard much during the present Congress about 
 the mechanics and the laboring poor; and it is this meritorious class of our 
 citizens that Mr. Secretary Walker would induce to believe he has taken 
 under his fatherly care, and one of the allegations he makes against the ex¬ 
 isting tariff is, that it “ discriminates in favor of the manufacturer and 
 against the mechanic, by higher duties upon the manufacture than upon 
 the article made out of it by the mechanic.” Why, sir, any school boy 
 can turn to the tariff of 1842, and convict the Secretary of downright mis¬ 
 representation ; and I am satisfied the allegation was made more for the 
 puipose of controlling the vote of the mechanic, than a desire to contribute 
 to his happiness or prosperity. 
 
12 
 
 What are the facts, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the protection afforded to 
 ■our mechanics by the present tariff? Why, sir, they are abundantly pro¬ 
 tected in every article they make, and they have too much intelligence not 
 to understand this. They have the whole of our markets to themselves, and 
 ■are entirely protected against foreign competition. But, sir, when you shall 
 have passed the bill now before the committee, and its effects upon the me¬ 
 chanic and laborer of the country shall have been realized, then, sir, they 
 will have learned by dear bought experience which afforded them the pro¬ 
 tection they most needed—the tariff of 1S42, or Mr. Walker’s policy. 
 
 I am well satisfied, sir, that the more you protect and develop the home 
 industry of the country the more you contribute to the wealth and happiness 
 of the people. A few days since I met with an address delivered at Colum¬ 
 bia, South Carolina, on the 26th November, 1840, by a distinguished mem¬ 
 ber of the other end of the Capitol, (Senator McDuffie,) in which I find 
 a passage so much to my purpose I will read it. He says : 
 
 “ The greatest, most prevailing, and most pernicious of all the practices which distinguish 
 and deform the agriculture of this and the other cotton-planting States is the almost exclusive 
 direction of the whole available labor of the plantation to the production of our greatest market 
 staple, and the consequent neglect of all the other commodities which the soil is capable of pro¬ 
 ducing or sustaining, and which arc essential to supply the wants of the establishment. No 
 scheme of reform or improvement can produce any great and salutary result which does not lay 
 the axe at the root of this radical vice in our husbandry. If I could now reveal a process (he 
 continues) by which our common soil could be made to produce two bales of cotton to the acre, 
 I should have great doubt whether the revelation would be a blessing or a curse to that great in- 
 
 He then urges upon the planters of the South to raise their own corn, 
 pork, bacon, horses, mules, &c.,and, from his own experience, tells them 
 how it can be done. 
 
 Why, Mr. Chairman, this is orthodox, and is just the doctrine we sub¬ 
 scribe to, and goes as far in support of home industry as I could wish any 
 man to go. Should the bill now before us ever reach the Senate, I hope 
 the distinguished Senator will urge the people of his State to use their wa¬ 
 ter power and labor in manufacturing their own cotton. Sir, when that 
 day comes, and come it will, we shall hear less of this clamor against pro¬ 
 tection. The “ lordsof the spindle and the loom” will have found a home, 
 yes, and a safe one too, in South Carolina. I am informed that already 
 some few cotton factories are in operation in the State, and that others are 
 aboutto be erected. The attention of the people is now being directed to 
 the subject. I have heard the prediction uttered, and I believe in the sound- 
 
13 
 
 ness of it, that the day was not far distant when she would return to her first 
 love, (in favor of protection,) and become a manufacturing Slate: The re¬ 
 commendation of her distinguished statesman has not been unheeded, and 
 the axe will be laid at the “radical vice in her husbandry;” then the 
 “curse” will be removed, and the “ blessing” realized. 
 
 I object to the bill and the amendment on the ground that it proposes a 
 system of ad valorem in the place of specific duties. I know, sir, it is con¬ 
 tended by some that ad valorem duties are the most just. In theory it would 
 seem so; but experience is the best teacher, and it is found that this system 
 leads to the most dangerous results. 1 have had some experience in this 
 matter, and 1 know the danger of the system. I believe, sir, that on the 
 whole continent of Europe specific duties prevail to the almost entire ex¬ 
 clusion of ad valorem. In the tariff of Sir Robert Peel, of seven hundred 
 and fourteen enumerated articles, six hundred and eight are specific, and 
 only one hundred and six ad valorem. 
 
 The opinions of all practical men, familiar with the subject, are in favor 
 of specific duties whenever it is practicable. Ad valorems lead to great un¬ 
 certainty in your revenue. Prices at home and abroad are continually 
 chantrinsr. The quantity consumed varies but little from year to year. 
 Make your duties specific, and you have no difficulty in estimating your pro¬ 
 bable revenue. 
 
 Gentlemen object, sir, to specific duties, on the ground that they impose 
 the same duty on the poorer article as on the good, and thus throw the 
 heaviest tax upon the working classes. Even if this was true, the tendency 
 of the system would work in favor of the poorer classes, as it would exclude 
 inferior qualities, and reduce, by competition, the value of the better quali¬ 
 ties, which are always cheapest in the end. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, let this Congress repeal the present tariff, and establish a 
 system of ad valorem duties by the passage of this bill, and,my word for it,, 
 sir, the country will be flooded with European fabrics—the rejected patterns 
 “ and spurious imitations, with false fugitives colors, will be thrown into our 
 markets in quantities to break down the most skilful manufacturer”—espe¬ 
 cially during a period of depression in the markets of Europe—and the coun¬ 
 try will be drained of her coin to pay for that which she does not want. 
 But this is not all: you strike a death blow at the mechanics of the country; 
 you take from them the protection that they now have; you reduce the duty 
 on the articles they manufacture; and you greatly increase the duty on al¬ 
 most every thing they use in manufacturing them. Sir, the tanner, hatter. 
 
14 
 
 tailor,shoemaker, blacksmith, and all other mechanics, will find themselves 
 undersold by articles of foreign production. I fear it will shut up the iron 
 and coal mines of Pennsylvania, and the salt works of my own State. The 
 tanners and glass works cannot be sustained against the foreign competition 
 which will pour in upon them. We now import hides at a duty of five per 
 cent., and, when made into leather, export it to a considerable extent; but 
 make the duty the same on the hides and leather, (or a difference of only 
 10 per cent.,) and the tanners will stop their works; they cannot derive any 
 profit from them, and we will become importers of leather instead of ship¬ 
 pers. 
 
 Gentlemen are anticipating great advantages to our commerce and agri¬ 
 culture from the repeal of the corn laws and opening of the ports of Eng¬ 
 land. Well, sir, I trust it may all be realized. I am glad the ports are 
 opened, and I have no doubt the enterprise of our merchants will make the 
 most out of it which our peculiar situation will allow. But we must not 
 forget that we are to have competitors for this trade, and from regions of the 
 world possessing great advantages, where bread-stuffs are produced in great 
 abundance, and where the wages of labor are comparatively nothing. The 
 wheat of the Baltic and the Mediterranean can be carried to England cheaper 
 than we can carry it from our Western States. I am told by a merchant 
 engaged in the purchase and shipment of flour, (and the fact has also been 
 stated in the newspapers,) that wheat has been landed in England, (I think 
 at Bristol,) from either Maldavia or Wallachia, which cost only 28 cents per 
 bushel in that country. I do not know what the freights are worth, but I 
 suppose 15 cents the bushel will land it in any part of England. Sir, I 
 have no doubt this statement is correct. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, 1 was very much struck by the remarks of the honotable 
 gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Gollamer) in relation to beef. Mexico 
 and the whole continent of South America abounds with beef cattle; and 
 large quantities of beef will find its way to England from those countries. 
 It cost nothing to produce it. Cattle arc only valued for their skins, tal¬ 
 low, and horns. But, when a market is opened for the beef, it will be fur¬ 
 nished to any extent, and at prices cheaper than from any part of the world. 
 
 If wheat can be landed in England at the ptice I have named, and should 
 the beef of South America and Mexico find its way to her markets, how are 
 we to be benefited by the repeal of the corn laws? If it is to be of benefit' 
 to us, is it not time, sir, that we began to realize something from it? It is 
 known that there was a short crop in England last year, and that she has 
 
15 
 
 had to look to other countries for a supply of some of the necessaries of life. 
 But, sir, I have not heard of any large shipment of flour or provisions. 
 Prices are now low in this country, and if it is not safe to make shipments 
 now, I ask gentlemen to tell me when it will be. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that at this very moment we are testing the 
 effect upon our markets of the repeal of the corn laws, and that if we do not 
 derive advantages from it now we never will, except when the crops in Eng¬ 
 land are cut oil'. I regard this measure as a masterly stroke of British poli¬ 
 cy, and developing that principle of protection which has always distin¬ 
 guished her as a nation. Sit Robert Peel knew perfectly well, that by fur¬ 
 nishing necessary food at the lowest possible rate, he was just as effectually 
 protecting the manufacturing interests of the country, as he was by keeping 
 the duty off of the raw materials; for the food which the manufacturer con¬ 
 sumes enters just as much into the cost of the article he manufactures as 
 does the raw material which he makes use of in manufacturing them. 
 
 I have said that England has adopted a system of specific duties. Al¬ 
 though I am not disposed to adopt her whole commercial policy, in this she 
 has shown her wisdom. ‘-'Why was this done by so wise, experienced, 
 and cautious a nation? (I use the language of a distinguished citizen of 
 my own State, Mr. Filmore.) Because, in imposing an ad valorem duty, 
 regard is always had to the cost of the article abroad, and not where the duty 
 is paid. It may be asked why is this? Why not calculate the duty on the 
 value of the article whence imported? Because it is found impracticable. 
 There are different qualities of the same article, and men’s opinions as to 
 these qualities are always found to differ. Hence ad valorem duties cannot be 
 made uniform. Thus, a gallon of wine imported into New York may 
 theie have one value; a gallon of the same article imported into Charleston 
 or New Orleans may have there a higher or a lower value. It is a matter 
 of opinion; and, if the duties are to be levied on the home valuation, as it 
 is called, the duties will not be uniform.” 
 
 Objections are also made to the principle of minimums. Why, are gen¬ 
 tlemen from the South, who oppose minimum duties, aware that the mini¬ 
 mum of six and a quarter cents the square yard on cottons was introduced 
 in 1S1G by Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, and carried by the vote of 
 that State? But I will not remind that noble State of her backslidings; as 
 I have already said, she will soon become a manufacturing State, and will 
 again stand where she did in 1S16—in favor of protection. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, it is for the farmer also that I would advocate protection 
 
16 
 
 to our labor,; because, sir, I believe it will give him a home market for his 
 produce—the only market upon which he can rely. I have already shown 
 how he is to be affected by looking to a foreign market to fix the price for 
 his productions. If you throw out of employ the mechanic and the manu¬ 
 facturer, and convert them into farmers, you increase the production of the 
 soil, and diminish the consumption. If you do this, does it not follow, as 
 a necessary consequence, that the farming interest is to be injuriously af¬ 
 fected ? 
 
 But, sir, I will not pursue this subject further. I could go on and give 
 other reasons than those which I have already assigned, why my vote will 
 be recorded against the measure before us. Sir, I have an abiding confi¬ 
 dence in the “ sober second thought of the people,” and I appeal to them 
 —to the farmer, mechanic, and the laborer of the country, if they are wil¬ 
 ling to have the wages of labor brought down to a level with the labor of 
 Europe —ten pence a day and meat once a week 9 
 
 In conclusion, I would urge upon the majority of this Congress to ponder 
 in their course—the people will hold them to a strict account. It is my firm 
 conviction that the measures proposed are at war with the best interest of 
 the country, and retribution will sooner or later fall upon those who carry 
 them out. When I look, sir, at the present prosperous condition of the 
 country, blessed by a beneficent Providence beyond all the other nations of 
 the earth, 1 tremble at the thought lest “we might be found fighting against 
 Him.”