SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 MB. A. STEWART, OF PENN., 
 
 INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND THE TARIFF, 
 
 DELIVERED IN 
 
 THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. STATES, MARCH 14, 184G. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 J. b G. S. GIDEON, PRINTERS. 
 
 1846. 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. STEWART, of Pennsylvania, said, he had not intended to address the 
 committee on the subject now under debate, but some of the remarks of the. gen¬ 
 tleman from Virginia, (Mr. Bayly,) who had just resumed his seat, had induced 
 him to depart from that purpose, and to throw himself on the indulgence of the 
 committee. 
 
 That gentleman opposed this bill on two grounds: 1st, he denied the consti¬ 
 tutional power of Congress to pass it; and, 2dly, he denied the expediency of 
 doing so if the power existed. 
 
 He wished to say a few words, in the first place, in reply to the constitutional 
 objection, and then notice some of the other remarks of the gentleman, in the 
 order they might occur to him. for he had taken no notes. As to the power, it 
 seemed to him if Congress had no power to pass this bill, it had not power to 
 pass any of the three hundred bills now upon the calendar. What are those 
 bills? What is their end and purpose? They are all introduced in pursuance of 
 that provision of our admirable Constitution, which declares that “ Congress 
 .shall have power to pass all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution 
 the foregoing powers.” The grants of power were, in a very few words, thus 
 —“ Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and 
 among the States,” “declare war, raise armies, provide and maintain a navy, 
 establish post offices and post roads;” and having thus briefly indicated the great 
 and substantive powers of the Government, it wisely declared, that Congress 
 should have power to select the means “ necessary and proper” for carrying into 
 effect these powers. This, perhaps, would have followed as a matter of course; 
 but, to remove all doubt, it had been expressly inserted. Now, what was the 
 character of all, or nearly all, the bills on your calendar, and all the laws in 
 your statute books? They were hut the means provided for carrying into effect 
 the great and express powers of Government; and if this bill to improve harbors 
 and rivers, to facilitate the commerce and defence of the country, was unconsti¬ 
 tutional, then all our bills are equally unconstitutional, and Congress might as 
 well adjourn and go home, and for all the good they are likely to do, he thought 
 the sooner the better. The repeal of the tariff, the subtreasury, and war, with 
 all their bitter and disastrous fruits, he feared were the only measures to be ex¬ 
 pected from the continued deliberations of the present Congress. The Southern 
 •strict constructionists, however, found their constitutional doctrines exceedingly 
 convenient: whatever they wish to carry was perfectly constitutional, without 
 the least shadow of a doubt; hut whenever a measure is proposed which they 
 dislike, and want to defeat, they have an easy expedient always ready—they get 
 behind the Constitution; it does not suit their taste; they do not relish its provi¬ 
 sions ; and of course it is contrary to the Constitution. But whatever pleases 
 Southern notions, or Southern interests, is all right—all perfectly constitutional. 
 
 Mr. S. did not derive the power to pass a bill for internal improvements from 
 any one special grant in the Constitution; it may be the result of different grants; 
 it depended upon the character of the improvement proposed—upon its end and 
 object. If it was intended to facilitate commerce amonn the States, the power 
 
4 
 
 to pass it resulted from the power “to regulate commerce among the States.” 
 If it was intended as a military road or canal, it referred itself to the military- 
 power. If it was designed for mail purposes, then the right to pass it was de¬ 
 rived from the post office power. Thus each and every constitutional grant of 
 power carried with it, as a necessary incident, its own appropriate means of ex¬ 
 ecution ; and without this the Constitution would have been a dead letter, and 
 this Government could never have been put in motion. 
 
 The Constitution did not, of course, enumerate all the things that Congress 
 may do; it could not indicate all the laws that Congress might pass to carry on 
 the Government in all time to come; that was impossible, and the attempt would 
 have been preposterous. The Constitution, in that case, would have been, not 
 an organic law, but a code of laws for a great and growing nation throughout all 
 time. The Constitution conferred on the Government of the country great and 
 leading substantive powers of a general character. It said that the Government 
 should have power to defend the country; power to regulate its commerce; power 
 to transmit intelligence. Then it declared that the Congress might do whatever 
 was “ necessary and proper” to carry out and make effective these general grants, 
 and suit them to the wants and exigencies of the country, as they should be de¬ 
 veloped in the progress of time and the arts. “ Congress,” says the Constitu¬ 
 tion, “ shall have power to establish post offices and post roads,” and there it 
 stopped; and there, according to the doctrines of the gentleman from Virginia, 
 the power of Congress to act stopped also. Yet how was it that Congress, by 
 virtue of this grant, had passed volumes and volumes of laws establishing a Post 
 Office Department, providing for the transportation of the mails, the punishment 
 of offences, and so on; if tne doctrines of the gentleman were correct, all these 
 laws were unconstitutional andjvoid; and so of all the laws passed for light-houses, 
 buoys, beacons, seawalls, forts, arsenals, and every thing of the kind, from the 
 foundation of the Government up to the present hour. The gentleman's consti¬ 
 tutional metaphysics subverted the whole of them, “ and like the baseless fabric 
 of a vision left not a wreck behind.” 
 
 When a gentleman proposes any measure to Congress for its action, and the 
 inquiry was raised as to the constitutional power to enact it, his answer must 
 depend on the subject matter; his first task was to show that it was “ necessary 
 and proper.” as a means of carrying into execution some one of the granted 
 powers. When he had shown that, he had a right to ask its adoption, and if a 
 majority of both Houses of Congress concurred with him it would be adopted, 
 if not it would be rejected; and here was the security, and the only security, 
 against unconstitutional legislation. Suppose the subject was a road, the mili¬ 
 tary power in the Constitution empowered Congress to make military roads for 
 the transportation of armies and munitions of war. And so the commercial power 
 authorized Congress to make commercial roads, whether over the land, or by 
 the channels and course of rivers. The military power gave Congress a right 
 to build a fort, but a fort might be so situated as to be useless without a road 
 leading to it; therefore, Congress has the same power to make the road that they 
 have to erect the fort. 
 
 If gentlemen would give themselves the trouble to look into the decisions of 
 the Supreme Court, they would find that that enlightened tribunal had laid down, 
 the doctrine he advocated, as the true and just interpretation of the Constitution- 
 In the case of McCulloch vs. the State of Maryland, reported in 4th Wheaton, 
 Chief Justice Marshall declared this to be the clear and undoubted meaning of 
 that instrument. The powers-Congress ordinarily exercise, are but in their na¬ 
 ture means of executing powers ; and the only limit, or restriction, imposed by 
 the Constitution on the discretion of Congress, is, that the means shall be “ ne¬ 
 cessary and proper’ to the end of carrying out of the granted power. Within 
 
5 
 
 that limitation Congress can do whatever they judge expedient in carrying out 
 the express powers. 
 
 Who is to judge whether a measure proposed is “necessary and proper” to the 
 execution of an express power? Congress must judge for itself; the degree of 
 necessity is not indicated. The Constitution does not say the means employed 
 must be absolutely or indispensably necessary—not at all; all that it requires 
 is that the means employed shall be fit and useful for the purpose indicated. 
 Such is the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, as delivered by Chief Justice 
 Marshall. Some gentlemen think it constitutional to make a long road, or im¬ 
 prove a long river, but not a short one. Length or breadth, or locality, has 
 nothing to do with the question. Whether the road be five miles long or five 
 hundred, is a matter perfectly immaterial; the true question is, what is its pur¬ 
 pose ? Suppose a road to a fort be but a mile long, if it is needed to reach the 
 fort it is constitutional to make it, as much so as if it were a thousand miles 
 long. 
 
 Mr. S. contended, that, as a means of national defence, a general system of 
 railroads, connecting our cities on the seaboard, and penetrating the interior, was 
 better and more effectual (in an extended country like curs) than any system of 
 fortifications that could be devised. Should an enemy make a demonstration on 
 any point on the seaboard, before he could approach and effect a landing, troops 
 could be collected sufficient to prevent the success of his enterprise. Had we 
 possessed such roads in the last war, this city would never have fallen into the 
 hands of the enemy: in two hours troops might have been brought from Balti¬ 
 more, who would have effectually checked the march of the invaders, and they 
 never would have wrapped this Capitol in flames. But forts, except in very 
 particular cases, may be avoided; the invading force can get round them; they 
 can choose their own place of landing, and they will choose accordingly. But 
 with a good net-work of railroads, and with improved rivers, rendered navigable 
 as highways, you can gather your strength at any requisite point, and that at the 
 shortest notice. 
 
 The gentleman would bring us back under the system of the old Confedera¬ 
 tion ; but that has been tried, and found insufficient for the well-being of a coun¬ 
 try so extensive as ours. In a time of peace, (and in our past history, as I trust 
 in our future, we shall have comparatively but little war,) forts are useless. 
 Costing millions and millions to erect them, they are utterly without value; while 
 at the same time, they continue to cost large sums to keep them in a state of 
 repair and suitably manned. But railroads are as useful in peace as in war. 
 They are well worth all they cost for purposes of commerce and intercourse. 
 What are forts worth in time of peace ? They are not only useless, but a source 
 ■of continual expenditure. And if railroads are a better means of defence than 
 forts, then they are more constitutional, being more “ necessary and proper” for 
 •carrying out the defensive power conferred upon Congress. 
 
 Having thus given my views of the constitutionality of this bill, I will say a 
 word or two as to the expediency of the measures it proposes. 
 
 The gentlemen from Virginia, (with many other gentlemen from the South,) 
 ■are terribly alarmed at this system ; they apprehend it is going to bankrupt the 
 Treasury—to waste the hard-earned money of the people ; that it is a licentious 
 and abominable proceeding, wholly without legal warrant or useful end. What? 
 Wasteful, profligate, unconstitutional to improve the country ? Why, has it'not 
 been done from the very foundation of the Government ? Has it not been done by 
 every Congress from that day to this? Why, then, has not the Treasury been 
 bankrupted by this horrid system longbcfore now ? Why should gentlemen con¬ 
 fine themselves to the future? ft is eas\ to prophecy—but, on their own principles, 
 why has the thing not occurred long ago? I believe we have a Treasury still—not. 
 
indeed, a very full Treasury, but with a present surplus of seven or eight mil¬ 
 lions lying idle and useless—useless to the Government, but not useless to the 
 hanks in which it is deposited. But the gentleman thinks that this system will 
 involve appropriations to the tune of a hundred millions of dollars per annum, 
 and read the veto message containing this frightful phantom. 
 
 In 1824, with the powerful aid of Mr. McDuffie, and many other distinguished 
 Southern gentlemen, a general system of internal improvement was adopted, and 
 a board of internal improvement, organized by Mr. Calhoun, then Secretary of 
 War, ordered to examine the whole country, and lay down a plan, accompanied 
 with estimates, for improving the entire Union, so as to enable Congress to select 
 the most national and important. The board, after a general recognizance, made 
 a report accordingly, proposing the appropriation of perhaps a hundred millions 
 of dollars; and this was what was put into the message to frighten the people; 
 it answered its purpose well—it did alarm the country. But then the gentleman, 
 and the message forgot to slate, that it was to be spread over perhaps a hundred, 
 years; and even now, the gentleman talks of a hundred millions being voted im¬ 
 mediately, and the Treasury bankrupt. These attempts to frighten the people, 
 by talking about hundreds of millions, is all sliere humbuer. Nothing of the sort 
 was ever dreamed of, and gentlemen know it. Every power confided to our 
 hands may be abused; but does that prove that the power does not exist? What 
 power do we hold, according to the gentleman’s own admission, which we may 
 not abuse? We have the power to levy taxes, and we may carry this so far as 
 to bankrupt, not the Treasury, but the People. We have the power to raise 
 armies and build fleets—and will the gentleman deny the existence of these 
 powers because they may be abused ? 
 
 But how is it that gentlemen from the South now talk so loud and long about 
 the inequality of the system—it is now all at once a system of Western robbery 
 and plunder. At the last session, these gentlemen were exceedingly kind and 
 accommodating to the West. But why ? They wanted Western votes for Tex¬ 
 as —they wanted their “logs rolled .” These western rivers were then “inland 
 seas”—all right, constitutional, and expedient—plenty of money for the West— 
 no objection. But their logs are now at the mill—they have got Texas and don’t 
 want Oregon, and now all at once their tune is changed. Now the cry is, oh!' 
 you western robbers, you cormorants, you ravenous wolves, nothing will satisfy 
 you short of “all of Oregon,” and the last dollar in the Treasury. But Mr. S. 
 contended, that the people of the West had been the mere step-children of this- 
 Government. When its good things were being distributed among its favorites,, 
 the West has received comparatively nothing. And why ? The seat of power 
 was on the seaboard. They gave the West a few crumbs, and they had to be. 
 “thankful for small favors.” He would venture to say, that if a line should be 
 drawn one mile above the flow of the tides, and from our western boundary and 
 the lakes round this whole Union, it would be found that the whole of the ap¬ 
 propriations, made for all the rivers and roads, and all other objects of improve¬ 
 ment, in the whole of the interior embraced in this vast boundary, from the foun¬ 
 dation of this Government up to the present hour, would not amount to as much, 
 as had been expended on a single fort or breakwater on the seaboard—he referred 
 to the Delaware breakwater and the “Rip Raps.” Scarcely as much as it had 
 cost to erect the splendid edifice in which we are now deliberating. And yet it 
 was said the West had got more than their share, and that nothing could satisfy 
 their ravenous appetites. Last session, the harbor and river bill, which for the 
 first time made some liberal appropriations to western objects, was vetoed by the 
 accidental President, who never received a single vote for that office—an act of 
 usurpation which would have produced an universal burst of indignation but for 
 the insignificance of the man. 
 
7 
 
 £Mr. Cobb here desired to ask Mr. Stewart, whether he had not voted for 
 ■that man as President? Mr. Stewart replied, never—for President, never, sir; 
 hut he would not stop to bandy words about Tyler, the subject was too low and 
 disgusting.]—(A laugh.) 
 
 Though the people of the West had contributed millions on millions to the 
 Treasury, what had they ever received ? Comparatively nothing. Her money, 
 like her great rivers, hail flowed in perpetual streams to the Atlantic, never never 
 to return. Where were her appropriations for buoys, light-houses, beacons, 
 forts, breakwaters, and all the thousand objects which carried the contents of the 
 Treasury to the East? The interior and the West had none of these objects: 
 and if appropriations for works of internal improvement must be denied, what 
 was she ever to receive ? The doctrine of these ultra constructionists would, 
 take from the Government all power to appropriate a dollar to the West. Where- 
 was our army? on the seaboard. Our navy? on the seaboard. Our ship-yards ? 
 on the seaboard. Our forts? on the seaboard. Our buoys and beacons? on the 
 seaboard. Our piers, harbors, breakwaters, and other defences ? on the seaboard. 
 Take away from us our internal improvements, and what have we left? Noth¬ 
 ing, sir, absolutely nothing. What Western man could vote for such doctrines, 
 it would be treason to his country and constituents to do so. But he would turn 
 the attention of gentlemen to one fact that seemed to be forgotten in some quar¬ 
 ters. In times past, the West was as nothing in the estimation of certain trans¬ 
 cendental constructionists, while the Atlantic States were the whole Union. To 
 the backwoodsmen, they gave out of mere condescension; but with a sparing 
 hand. The seaboard took out of the head of the heap, while the West got the 
 sweepings of the grain floor. The prime dishes on the Government table were 
 for the princes of the Coast, while the West must be content with the crumbs. 
 But a period was fast approaching when the West would no longer be found 
 begging for crumbs, and having even the crumbs refused, or given with a nig¬ 
 gardly hand. No, sir! If the people of the West were at this moment fully 
 represented, according to their present population, in]hat Hall, they would com¬ 
 mand what they now had to ask in vain. If they had their rights on this floor 
 to-day , they would control the legislation of this country. But a few years 
 would set this matter right. Four or five years would bring the next census, 
 and then the people on the west of the Alleganies would demand with a voice 
 that would not be disregarded—it would then be their turn to give and take; and 
 let gentlemen beware in time. 
 
 Gentlemen said the States ought to make these improvements. But what was 
 the character of these works ? Were they not national in every respect ? The 
 great rivers of the West belonged to no State or States—they were the property 
 of the whole country. They constituted the States’ boundaries, as did the At¬ 
 lantic—they were as national as the ocean. These rivers were among the in¬ 
 ternal concerns of no State. What right had any State to carry on improvements 
 in rivers which were not theirs ? The gentleman from Virginia said that the 
 States had ruined themselves by their internal improvements. That made against 
 his argument. They had ruined themselves in doing, out of their own State 
 funds, what ought to have been done out of the National Treasury. The execution: 
 of works strictly national, had been improperly cast upon the States; and if 
 they were ruined, it was because the General Government had refused to exer¬ 
 cise its own legitimate powers, and perform its legitimate duties. A sense of 
 common justice would lead Congress to appropriate something to enable the 
 West to clear out her rivers, and build her roads, and develop her boundless re¬ 
 sources. The improvements provided for in this bill, might save, annually, hun¬ 
 dreds of lives ami millions of property. When gentlemen formerly talked about 
 the commerce of the United Slates, nobody thought of any thing but foreign 
 
S' 
 
 commerce. That was the commerce of the country. Internal commerce was 
 nothing—it was forgotten and overlooked. Every thing must be done for our 
 foreign commerce, nothing for internal commerce, though it now amounted to 
 more than twenty times as much as the whole of our boasted foreign commerce. 
 Y et gentlemen still go for foreign commerce; nothing but foreign commerce 
 was constitutional. Foreign labor—foreign goods—foreign every thing. All 
 was foreign, foreign, foreign. All was British—nothing American. Mr. S. had 
 no idea that this Government had no duty, no obligation, to any body but for¬ 
 eigners. He thought our first duty was to ourselves, our own country, and our 
 own people. 
 
 THE TARIFF AND FARMERS. 
 
 I had not intended, said Mr. S., to say one word about the Tariff; but I am 
 strongly tempted to state a fact or two in reply to the gentleman from Virginia. 
 That gentleman dwelt entirely on the benefits of foreign trade. He went alto¬ 
 gether in favor of importing foreign goods, and creating a market for the 
 benefit of foreigners. Would our own agriculture be benefited by a pro¬ 
 cess like this? Nothing could more effectually divert the benefit from our own 
 people and pour it in a constant stream upon foreign labor. No American in¬ 
 terest was so much benefitted by a protective system as that of agriculture. 
 The foreign market was nothing, the home market was everything, to them ; it 
 was as one hundred to one. The Tariff gave us the great home market, while 
 the gentleman’s scheme was to secure us, at best, but the chance of a mar¬ 
 ket abroad, while it effectually destroyed our secure and invaluable market at 
 home. The gentleman says he is very anxious to compete with the pauper la¬ 
 bor of Europe. I will tell him one fact: With all the protection we now en¬ 
 joy, Great Britain sends into this country eight dollars’ worth of her agricultural 
 productions to one dollar’s worth of all our agricultural productions (save cotton 
 and tobacco) that she takes from us. 
 
 Mr. Bavly. Does the gentleman assert that ? 
 
 Mr. Stewart. I do—and will prove it. 
 
 Mr. Bavly. Then you will prove the returns false which are made by our 
 own Government. 
 
 No, sir; I will prove it by the returns furnished by Mr. Walker himself in 
 support of the bill which he has laid before the Committee of Ways and Means. 
 Now, I assert, and can prove, that more than half the value of all the British 
 goods imported into this country consist of agricultural products, changed in 
 form, converted and manufactured into goods. And I invite a thorough analysis 
 of the facts. I challenge the gentleman to the scrutiny. Take down all the 
 articles in a store, one after another—estimate the value of the raw material, the 
 bread and meat, and other agricultural products which have entered into their 
 fabrication, and it will be found that one-half and more of their value consists 
 of the productions of the soil—agricultural produce in its strictest sense. 
 
 Now, by reference to Mr. Walker’s report, it will be seen that, for twelve 
 years back, we have imported from Great Britain and her dependencies annually 
 52 s millions of dollars worth of goods, but call it 50 millions, while she took 
 of all our agricultural products, save cotton and tobacco, less than two and a 
 half millions of dollars worth. Thus, then, assuming one-half the value of her 
 goods to be agricultural, it gives us 25 millions of her agricultural produce to ‘2f 
 millions of ours taken by her, which is just ten to one; to avoid cavil, I put it 
 at eight to one. To test the truth of his position, he was prepared, if 
 time permitted, to refer to numerous facts. But for the information of the 
 gentleman from Virginia, who is so great a iriend to the poor and oppressed 
 farmers, [ will tell him that we have imported yearly, for twenty-six years, 
 
9 
 
 (so says Mr. Walker’s report,) more than ten millions of dollars worth of wool¬ 
 len goods. Last year we imported $10,666,176 worth. Now, one-half and 
 more of the value of this cloth was made up of wool, the subsistence of labor 
 and other agricultural productions. The general estimate is, that the wool alone 
 is half. The universal custom among farmers, when they had their wool man¬ 
 ufactured on the shares, was to give the manufacturer half the cloth. Thus we 
 import, and our farmers have to pay, for Jive millions of dollars worth of foreign 
 wool every year in the form of cloth, mostly the production of sheep feeding on 
 the grass and grain of Great Britain, while our own wool is worthless, for want 
 of a market; and this is the policy the gentleman recommends to American 
 farmers. Yes, sir; and the gentleman is not satisfied with five millions, but 
 wishes to increase it to ten millions a year for foreign wool. Will the gentle¬ 
 man deny this ? He dare not. He has declared for Mr. Walker’s hill, reducing 
 the duties on woollens nearly one-half, with a view to increase the revenue; of 
 course, the imports must be doubled, making the import of cloth twenty millions 
 instead of ten, and of wool ten instead of five millions of dollars per annum. 
 
 This was the gentleman’s plan to favor the farmers, British farmers, by giv¬ 
 ing them the American market. His plan was to buy everything, sell nothing, 
 and get rich. (A laugh.) What was true as to cloth was equally true as to 
 everything else. Take a hat, a pair of shoes, a yard of silk or lace, analyze it, 
 resolve it into its constituent elements, and you will find that the raw material, 
 and the substance of labor, and other agricultural products, constituted more 
 than one-half its entire value. The pauper labor of Europe employed in manu¬ 
 facturing silk and lace got what it eat, no more ; and this is what you pay for 
 when you purchase their goods. Break up your home manufactures and home 
 markets, import everything you eat and drink and wear, for the benefit of the 
 farmers. Oh, what friends these gentlemen are to the farmers and mechanics 
 and laborers of this country—no, sir, I am wrong, of Great Britain. 
 
 Now, I ask whether wool is not, in the strictest sense, an agricultural produc¬ 
 tion ? And if we import ten millions in cloth, is not five millions of that sum 
 paid for the wool alone—a product of British farmers ? As a still stronger illus¬ 
 tration of his argument, Mr. S. referred to the article of iron. Last year, ac¬ 
 cording to Mr. Walker’s Report, we imported $9,043,396 worth of foreign iron, 
 and its manufactures, mostly frcyn Great Britain, four-fifths of the value of which, 
 as every practical man knew, consisted of agricultural produce—nothing else. 
 Iron is made of ore and coal; and what is the ore and coal buried in your moun¬ 
 tains worth? Nothing—nothing at all, unused. What gives it value ? The 
 labor of horses, oxen, mules, and men. And what sustained this labor but corn 
 and oats, hay and straw for the one, and bread and meat and vegetables of every 
 kind for the other ? These agricultural products were purchased and consumed, 
 and this made up nearly the whole price of the iron which the manufacturer re¬ 
 ceived and paid over to the farmers again and again, as often as the process was 
 repeated. Well, is not iron made in England of the same materials that it is 
 made of here? Certainly; then is not four-fifths of the value of British iron 
 made up of British agricultural produce? and if we purchase nine millions of 
 dollars worth of British iron a year, do we not pay six or seven millions of this 
 sum for the produce of British farmers—grain, hay, grass, bread, meat, and other 
 provisions for man and beast—sent here for sale in the form of iron ? He put it 
 to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bayly) to say if this was not true to the 
 letter. He challenged him to deny it, or disprove it if he could. The gentle¬ 
 man’s plan was to break down these great and growing markets for our own 
 farmers, and give our markets to the British ; and yet he professed to be a friend 
 to American fanners!! “ From such friends good Lord deliver them!" One 
 remark more on tills topic; Secretary Walker informs us that the present duty 
 
10 
 
 on iron is 75 per cent., which he proposes to reduce to 30 per cent., to increase 
 the revenue. To do this, must he not then double the imports of iron ? Clearly 
 he must. Then we must add ten or twelve millions per year to our present im¬ 
 ports of iron, and of course destroy that amount of our domestic supply to make 
 room for it. Thus at a blow, in the single article of iron, this bill is intended to 
 destroy the American markets for at least eight millions of dollars worth of do¬ 
 mestic agricultural produce to he supplied from abroad ; and this is the Ameri¬ 
 can—no! the British —system of policy which is now attempted to be imposed 
 upon this country by this Brilish-hating Administration! Let them do it, 
 and in less than two years there will not he a specie-paying bank in the country. 
 The people and the Treasury will be again bankrupt, and the scenes and suffer¬ 
 ings of 1840 will return; and with it, as a necessary consequence, the political 
 revolutions of that period. 
 
 The home market, Mr. S. contended, was every thing to the farmer, and the 
 foreign market comparatively nothing. Massachusetts alone purchased and con¬ 
 sumed fourteen times as much of the grain, flour, and meat of the other States 
 as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, from whom we took fifty 
 millions of dollars worth of manufactures yearly. Massachusetts took 35 mil¬ 
 lions worth, (exclusive of cotton and tobacco,) while Great Britain took hut two 
 and a half 11 Yet, according to the gentleman from Virginia, the foreign market 
 was vastly the most important! 1 
 
 Mr. Leake here put this question to Mr. S.: Whether cotton and tobacco were- 
 not agricultural products '! 
 
 Mr. S. Certainly; but they are not our only agricultural products. There 
 were other interests in this country worth looking after and preserving besides 
 cotton and tobacco. But, no doubt, the gentleman concurs with Mr. Secretary 
 Walker, who tells us, in his free trade report, which has so delighted England, 
 and no wonder it has, for he there says we must take more British goods, because, 
 if we do not, “ England must pay for our ‘ breadstuff's ’” in specie, and “not 
 having it to spare, she will bring down to even a greater extent the price of our 
 cotton.” Yes, “ our cotton”—there is the rub. The North and West must quit 
 work, sell nothing, and bring every thing from England, and send them our specie 
 as long as it lasts, so that England may have “ specie to spare ” for Southern cot¬ 
 ton—-that’s the plan thus openly and boldly proclaimed by the Secretary and his 
 followers. We of the North and West must send our last dollar to England to buy 
 bread and meat, and grass and grain, in the form of iron and cloth, to increase 
 the price of “ our cotton.” We must be “ hewers of wood and drawers of 
 water” for Great Britain—paupers, slaves, and beggars, that England may have 
 “ specie to spare” for Southern cotton, This is the undisguised policy and 
 purpose of the Treasury Report. But Mr. S. would say to these Southern gen¬ 
 tlemen: Don’t be afraid. You will have your cotton market still. England 
 must have your cotton—she can’t do without it at present. But beware ; the 
 time may come when England would not want “ our cotton,” and the South, 
 in turn, would cry out for protection. But the gentleman congratulates the 
 West with the prospect of an early repeal of the com laws. But, in his opinion, 
 if the corn laws were repealed, the people of the West would scarcely get a 
 bushel of their grain into England on any terms. 
 
 [Mr. Bayly. Do you mean what you say, that not one bushel will go 
 there ?] 
 
 Mr. Stewart. I will answer the gentleman, by giving him Lord Ashburton’s 
 speech in the House of Lords a few days ago. He states that nine-tenths of 
 the grain now imported in Great Britain is supplied from the north of Europe, 
 although they pay a tax of fifteen shillings the quarter; while that from Canada 
 and the United States, passing through Canada, pays but four shillings. Re- 
 
11 
 
 peal the duty of fifteen shillings, and will they not supply the whole ? Most 
 clearly they will. The fact is notorious, that most of our grain and flour now 
 goes to England through her colonial ports, and at colonial duties, thus etading 
 the operation of the corn laws, while the grain and flour from the north of Eu¬ 
 rope must always pay the highest duties imposed by the corn laws. Hence 
 Lord Ashburton very justly argues, that we must be overwhelmed if the corn 
 laws are repealed ; and this great advantage, now enjoyed by Canada and the 
 United States, of importing flour and grain at about one-fourth of the duty paid by 
 the importers from the Baltic and the Black sea. Repeal the corn laws—put them 
 on an equal footing with us, and is not the question settled, and the market lost 
 to our grain and flour in all time to come ? Nothing can be clearer. And yet 
 gentlemen exult in the prospect of the repeal of the corn laws, and are ready to 
 sacrifice the whole of our manufactures and home markets to bring it about. 
 Such will be the operation of the repeal of the corn laws on American agricul¬ 
 ture, and such is the statement of Lord Ashburton, who perhaps knows as much 
 about the matter as even the learned gentleman from Virginia. But this is not 
 all. This opinion of Lord Ashburton is sustained by the most intelligent mer¬ 
 chants in Great Britain. Such is the uniform tenor of the testimony recently 
 taken before a select committee of the House of Commons on this subject. 
 Henry Cleaver Chapman, one of the witnesses, and one of the most intelligent 
 men in the kingdom, says: “ Repeal the corn laws, and the growing trade with 
 Canada and the Western Stales of America will be crushed by the cheaper 
 productions of the Baltic and the Black sea; consequently,” he adds, “ America, 
 Canada, and British shipping, would receive a severe and decisive blow” by 
 the repeal of the corn laws. But still the gentleman from Virginia exults in the 
 prospect of the repeal of the corn laws, and boasts of the market it will open 
 to our Western farmers, to whom, however, he will not give one dollar for their 
 rivers and improvements—not a cent—but is anxious to seduce them into this. 
 British free trade trap ; but he would say to the West, “timeo dattaos,” trust 
 your friends, and beware of your enemies. Look at the boasted foreign mar¬ 
 ket, what is it? Comparatively nothing. Lookat facts. The agricultural pro¬ 
 ductions of the United States, exclusive of cotton and tobacco, is estimated at 
 one thousand millions per year. Our exports to all the world amounted last 
 year to 811,195,515. Of this, Great Britain took about two and a half. All 
 the rest was consumed at home. So the foreign markets of the world amount¬ 
 ed to 11 millions, and the home market to 989 millions. Yet the gentleman 
 had just pronounced the foreign markets everything to the farmers, and the home 
 markets comparatively nothing. But another fact. Our exports of manufac¬ 
 tures last year, including those of wood, amounted to $13,429,166. Assuming, 
 as in the case of British manufactures, that one-half their value is made up of 
 American agricultural produce, then we export nearly seven millions of dollars 
 worth of agricultural produce in the form of manufactures, which does not glut 
 or injure the foreign markets, for our flour and grain, in its original form. To 
 use a familiar illustration: Western farmers send their corn, hay, and oats, thou¬ 
 sands of dollars worth, every year to the Eastern market, not in its rude and ori¬ 
 ginal form, but in the form of hogs and horses; they give their hay-stacks 
 life and legs, and make them trot to market with the farmer on their back. (A 
 laugh.) So the British converted their produce, not into hogs or horses, but into 
 cloth and iron, and send it here for sale. And, viewing the subject in this light, 
 he could demonstrate that there was not a State in the Union that did not now 
 consume jive dollars worth of British agricultural produce to one dollar’s worth 
 she consumes of theirs. Time would not permit him to go into details ; but he 
 would furnish the elements from which any one could make the calculation. 
 Assuming that consumption and exportation are m proportion to population,. 
 
12 
 
 then we import 50 millions of British goods, and 25 millions—one-half is agri¬ 
 cultural produce. We export to England agricultural produce (excluding cot¬ 
 ton anti tobacco) 2§ millions. Divide these sums, 25 and 2| millions, by 223, 
 the number of Representatives, and it gives 8112,108 as the amount of British 
 agricultural produce consumed in the form of go'ods in each Congressional dis¬ 
 trict; and 811,210 as their export to Great Britain of agricultural produce. 
 This gives the proportion of ten to one. Yet gentlemen are not satisfied, and 
 wish still further to increase the import of British goods, and still further pros¬ 
 trate and destroy the American farmer and mechanic and laboring man to favor 
 foreigners. To shew the effect upon currency, as well as agriculture, suppose 
 the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bayly) wants a new coat; he goes to a Brit¬ 
 ish importer and pays him 20 dollars, hard money, and hard to get. England 
 takes none of your rag money. (A laugh.) Away it goes, in quick time. We see 
 no more of it, as far as circulation is concerned, the gentleman might as well 
 have thrown it into the fire. 1 want a coat. I go to the American manufacturer 
 and buy $20 worth of American broadcloth. (He wears no other, and he would 
 compare coats with the gentleman on the spot. (A laugh.) Well, the manu¬ 
 facturer, the next day, gave it to the farmer for wool; he gave it to the shoema¬ 
 ker, the hatter, and blacksmith; they gave it back to the farmer for meat and 
 bread; and here it went from one to another. You might perhaps see his busy 
 and bustling 820 note five or six times in the course of a day. This made money 
 plenty. But where was the gentleman’s hard money? Vanished; gone to re¬ 
 ward and enrich the wool-groweis and farmers, shoemakers, hatters, and black¬ 
 smiths of England. Now, I go for supporting the American farmers and me¬ 
 chanics, and the gentleman goes for the British—that’s the difference. Can .the 
 gentleman deny it ? There are but two sides in this matter, the British and 
 the American side; and the simple question is, which side shall we take ? The 
 great struggle is between the British and American fanners and mechanics for 
 the American market, and we must decide which shall have it. 
 
 Mr. S. rvould here take occasion to state a fact that would startle the 
 American people. 
 
 The British manufacturers have, at this moment, possession of this Capitol. 
 Yes, sir, I tell you and the country—one of the principal committee rooms in 
 this house is now, and has been for weeks past, occupied by a gentleman for¬ 
 merly residing in Manchester, England, who has a vast number, perhaps hun¬ 
 dreds of specimens of goods sent from Manchester (priced to suit the occasion) 
 to be exhibited to members of Congress to enlighten their judgments, and in 
 the language of his letter of instruction from Manchester of the 3d January, 
 ’46, accompanying these specimens, to enable them “ to arrive at just conclu¬ 
 sions in regard to the proposed alterations in the present tariff.” Aes, sir, 
 agents, specimens, and letters from Great Britain instructing us how to make a 
 tariff to suit the British. Mr. S. here expressed the hope that the people of 
 the North would send on specimens of American manufactures tp be also ex¬ 
 hibited in the Capitol, not only to show their perfection and extent, but to 
 correct on the spot the false representations made by these Manchester men and 
 their agents in regard to the character and prices of British and American goods. 
 Speaking of the President’s message, this Manchester letter writer exclaims “ a 
 second Daniel come to judgment, a second Richard Cobden;” and so delighted 
 were they in England with Mr. Walker’s celebrated free trade report that it was 
 ordered to be printed by the House of Lords. After all this, having our Presi¬ 
 dent and Secretary on their side, they ought to have been content, without send¬ 
 ing their letters of instructions here to direct us what kind of a tariff they wish 
 us to pass. But if their chancellor had sent us a revenue bill, he could not have 
 furnished one to suit Great Britain better titan the one furnished by the Secretary of 
 
13 
 
 the Treasury. Parliament would pass it by acclamation. Sir Robert Peel under¬ 
 stands his business; he proposes to take the duties off lireadstuffs and raw ma¬ 
 terials of all kinds used by their manufacturers, and remove every burden so as 
 to enable them to meet us and beat us in our own markets and in the markets of 
 the world, where Yankee competition is beginning to give them great uneasi¬ 
 ness. Last year, we exported hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cotton 
 goods into the British East Indies, and beat the British in their own markets, after 
 paying discriminating duties imposed to keep us out, first 8, then 10, finally lfi 
 per cent. In this great struggle, Sir Robert Peel comes to the rescue; herepeals 
 the duty on cotton and wool, and bread and meat, and every thing used by Bri¬ 
 tish manufacturers to enable them to go ahead in this struggle with the Amer¬ 
 icans; and what does Mr. Walker do ? Just the reverse. He proposes to take 
 off all protective duties, and imposes heavy burdens on the raw materials, dye¬ 
 stuffs, &c., used by our manufacturers, so as effectually to prostrate and break 
 them down. Sir Robert Peel takes burdens off his steed, while Sir Robert Wal¬ 
 ker piles bags of sand on his—then crack their whips—clear the road—a fair 
 race ! (A laugh.) Such is the difference between British and American policy. 
 Sir Robert Peel’s present system furnishes powerful arguments for adhering to 
 our protective system—his object is not to favor, but to beat us; and our course 
 is not to defeat, but to favor his purpose. This will not only be the effect of 
 the tariff' proposed by our Secretary, but it is its open and avowed purpose and 
 design; is it not the proclaimed purpose of the message and report to increase 
 the importation of British goods, and of course, to that extent, destroy Ameri¬ 
 can supply ? Does not the Secretary propose to reduce the protective duties 
 more than one-half for the purpose of increasing revenue; and if the revenue is 
 increased by reducing duties one-half, must not the imports be more than doub¬ 
 led ? This is self-evident, and if you double your imports of foreign goods, 
 must you not destroy to that extent American supply? Most certainly, unless 
 the Secretary can, in his wisdom, devise a plan to make people eat, drink, 
 wear double as much as they now do. But where will we find money to pay 
 for them ? There’s the rub. But startling and extraordinary as it may appear,, 
 our Secretary, for the first time in the history of the world, has boldly and open¬ 
 ly avowed it as the object of Government to break down and destroy its own 
 manufactures for the purpose of making way for those of foreigners. In the 
 very first paragraph of his argumentative report he sets out with stating that the 
 revenue of the 1st quarter of this year is two millions less than the 1st quarter 
 of the last, and that this has been occasioned by the substitution of highly 
 protected American manufactures for foreign imports; and this evil, this ter¬ 
 rible evil, this American Secretary proposes to remedy by reducing the protec¬ 
 tive duties, and thus breaking up this abominable business of “ substituting 
 domestic products,” made by American labor, out of American produce, for 
 British goods, made by British labor, out of British produce. Oh! but he 
 hates the British. Now, sir, this is not only the doctrine of his text, but it 
 runs through his whole sermon of 957 pages. No wonder it was printed by 
 the House of Lords: and let our Secretary carry through this bill, and Queen 
 Victoria would gladly transfer the seals from Sir Robert Peel to Sir Robert 
 Walker, for he will have rendered her a greater service than any other man, dead 
 
 But this is not only the doctrine of the Treasury report, but of the message 
 itself. The revenue standard laid down in the message aims a death blow at all 
 American industry. It suggests a kind of “ sliding scale,” so that whenever 
 anv branch of American industry begins to heat the foreigner, and supply the 
 market, and thereby diminish imports and revenue, this is evidence that the 
 duty is too high and ought to be reduced, so as to let in the foreign rival produc- 
 
14 
 
 lions; but let the President speak for himself—here is his revenue standard in 
 his own words: 
 
 “ Tbs precise point in the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained from experience 
 that the revenue is greatest, is the maximum rate of duty which can he laid for the bona fide 
 purpose of collecting money for the support of Government'. To raise the duties higher than 
 that^point, and thereby diminish the amount collected, is to levy them for protection merely, and 
 
 ■standard. When they go beyond that point, and as they increase th/duties, the revenue is di¬ 
 minished or destroyed, the act ceases to have for its object the raising of money to support 
 Government, but is for protection merely.” 
 
 What is this but a rule to favor foreigners, and break down Americans ? The 
 moment the American by his superior industry and skill begins to succeed, then 
 the duty must come down so as to increase foreign imports and revenue. This 
 is the plain and inevitable operation of the rule, and who would go into manu¬ 
 facturing under such an anti-American rule as this, making it death by the law 
 —certain and inevitable. As an illustration, take iron for instance. Owing to 
 the rapid increase of iron works in the United States, the import of iron has 
 been greatly reduced; then the Executive rule applies—down with the duties, so 
 -as to increase imports and revenue. Accordingly, Mr. Walker proposes to reduce 
 the duty, which, he says, is now 75 per cent., to 30 per cent., so as to increase 
 the revenue. AVell, to do this, he must more than double the imports, now 
 amounting to more than eight millions a year, and thus he mnst import 16 mil¬ 
 lions of dollars wortli of iron instead of eight—destroy eight millions of Ameri¬ 
 can manufacture to make way for the foreign, and thus import 12 millions of 
 dollars worth of foreign (mostly English) grain and other produce used in the 
 manufacture of this iron; for the fact is incontestible, that more than three- 
 fourths of the value of iron is made up of the produce of the soil. And this is 
 the policy to favor American farmers and American laborers! Throw the 
 plough out of the furrow, and turn labor out to starve—to make way for British 
 goods, and increase revenue ! 
 
 Mr. S. said he had not time at present, but he would avail himself of the first 
 proper occasion, to shew, as he thought he could most clearly, that'all the theo¬ 
 ries of the Secretary and his followers in favor of their free trade policy were 
 not only false and unfounded, but that exactly the reverse of those theories was 
 true. He referred to the theories that “ protection was for the benefit of manu¬ 
 facturers at the expense of the farmers and laborers of the country;” that “pro¬ 
 tection increased the price of manufactured goods, and reduced the price of labor 
 and produce;” that it “favored monopoly and wealth at the expense of the poor;” 
 that “tedneing duties would increase revenue,” &c. He could scarcely speak of 
 such gross absurdities in respectful terms. What? Favor invested capital by- 
 building up competition, and increasing the supply of the articles they had to 
 sell? Injure the farmers by doubling the demand for their produce, raw mate¬ 
 rials and bread-stuffs of every kind ? Oppress and rob the consumer by giving 
 him goods at one-fourth of their former price? Reduce wages by doubling the 
 demand for labor—labor of men, women, and children? Yes, sir, increase the 
 price of goods by doubling the supply, and reduce the price of agricultural pro¬ 
 duce by doubling the demand ? Favor monopolies by building up competition, 
 the only thing to destroy it? Such are the absurd theories of free trade. But 
 gentlemen must first reverse all the laws of trade—the great and universal law 
 that “demand and supply regulate prices;”—a law as universal and invariable 
 in its operation, as the law that governs the solar system, must not only be 
 repealed, but reversed in its operations, before gentlemen could sustain any of 
 these absurdities. 
 
 The clock admonished him that his time was out 
 
 t—he would avail himself 
 
15 
 
 of the moment left to warn gentlemen—if they would allow him to prophecy, 
 he would say—gentlemen, pass this Treasury bill, approved, as he under¬ 
 stood, by the cabinet —bring back the scenes of 1840—restore your twenty 
 per cent, tariff—bankrupt your treasury—paralyze your national industry 
 —break down your farmers, manufacturers, and mechanics, by importing 
 goods and exporting money —pass this bill, and in eighteen months you will 
 scarcely have a specie-paying bank, or a specie dollar left in the country. 
 Pass this bill, and you will not only bring back the scenes, but I repeat, you will 
 bring with them the political revolutions of 1840. Again will be heard through¬ 
 out the land the cry of “ change! change! any change must be for the bet¬ 
 ter.” Political revolutions are the fruits of popular suffering and discontent; in 
 prosperity the cry is “ let well enough alone.” 
 
 (A voice.) Then as a Whig you ought to go for the new tariff. 
 
 Yes, said Mr. S., if I was like some gentlemen on tlfs floor—if I loved my 
 party more than my country, I would; but as I love my country more than my 
 party, I will not. If it were not for the lash and drill of party discipline, this 
 “ British, bill ” would find few advocates on this floor. It was the bantling of 
 party—the illegitimate offspring of the Baltimore Convention, that Pandora’s 
 box whence originated most of the troubles that now afHict this country. But he 
 again warned gentlemen—pass this bill, and in the strong language of a demo¬ 
 cratic Senator~on a late occasion, it will sink “theparty so low that the arm of 
 resurrection could never reach it"—so low that—(here the hour having expired, 
 the chairman’s hammer fell, and Mr. S. resumed his seat.)