whether it be forestalling of public opinion as to the repeal of the salt duty, or the forestalling the article itself, of which the mover so loudly complains. Of the two, the former may prove by far the most exceptional and injurious, if it should contribute to prevent a fair and satisfactory adjustment of the duties.

But, Sir, if I had no other objection to the printing of these papers, there is one, growing out of their character, if I understand their contents correctly, which, with me, is decisive. I know nothing of their contents, except as drawn from the statement of the Senator himself. I infer from it that a large portion consists of correspondence and other evidence, calculated to show that the manufacturers of domestic salt, who supply the West with the article, are guilty of the most odious monopoly, fraud, imposition, and oppression, for which reason it is proposed to repeal the duty on the imported article. I confess I do not see how the repeal of the small duty still remaining, and the still smaller that will, after a short period, remain, can have the effect intended; but, be that as it may, I utterly oppose the principle on which it is proposed to place the repeal, and cannot give it the countenance which the voting for the printing of the papers would give. The principle involved, according to my conception, is precisely the same as that contained in the bill of the Senator from Kentucky, which was condemned by so decided a vote of this body at the last session. What did that bill propose? That the President should dismiss Federal officers who should interfere in elections. And on what principle was it voted down? That the right of suffrage was a reserved right, left by the constitution under the regulation of the States respectively; and that it belonged to them, and not to us, to say who should and who should not vote, and under what regulations they should vote; and that it was not for us to supply any supposed defect, or omission, on the part of the States, in the exercise of their power. This was the solid

basis, on which we rested our objection to the bill, and on which it was voted down by so strong a vote. Now, Sir, if we turn to this case, we shall find, if I mistake not, the same principle apply with equal force. The salt works, with their production, and those employed in them, are under the exclusive legislation of the States within which they lie, and are exclusively subject to their regulation, as is the right of suffrage. This no one will deny. If, then, there be monopoly, frand, imposition, or oppression in their management, it belongs clearly to the States, where the works are, to correct the abuse, and not this Government. None will deny this. In fact, the Senator himself acknowledged this, when he asserted that the State was competent to make the acts of which he complains, and which he proposes to establish by these papers, a felony. I now ask what greater right have we to assume in this case that the States have neglected or omitted to do their duty, than in the case of the right of suffrage; and, on that supposition, to modify our legislation so as to remedy the evil, and punish the supposed delinquents? Can any one point out any distinction in the two cases? How, then, could we reconcile our vote at the last session with a vote that would give countenance to the principle proposed to be established by these papers? I protest solemnly against an act that could lead to such an inference. If the duty on salt ought to be repealed on financial principles or considerations of general expediency, let it be repealed. In that case, these papers would not be worth a farthing. But if not-if the repeal is to be placed on the supposed defect, or omission of duty, on the part of the States, a more dangerous and unconstitutional ground could not be assumed. It would make this Government the supervisor of the State Governments. If these papers have any value at all, they ought to be sent to the Legislature of Virginia, now in session, which only is competent to correct the supposed abuses of the salt establishments on the Kanawha and

elsewhere within her limits, and which constitute the main object of their attack. As great as would be the unconstitutionality of ordering them to Richmond, to be laid before the Legislature of Virginia, I would consider it far less so than to make them the basis of our legislation.

With a few remarks on a single point, I shall close what I intend to say. It is proposed, with the repeal of the duty on salt, to repeal the fishing bounties, which, it is alleged, originated in the former. I do not intend to enter into that question; I leave it to others to decide on their origin. I place my refusal to a repeal of these bounties, at this time, on a wholly different basis. The great navigating, like the planting interest, has felt the heavy hand of your protective system. It has had, like the planting interest, to meet foreign competition abroad, not only without protection, but under the weight of oppressive duties, many of which still remain. I, for one, whether the fishing bounties are right or wrong in the abstract, will not agree to repeal them till you are prepared to do justice to that great interest. Take off your duties on iron, on hemp, and on lead, which fall so heavily on it, and then I shall be prepared to consider the expediency of repealing those bounties, but not before. Justice and equity are higher considerations than expediency. I stand up for them. While I insist on justice for the interest I represent, I would be ashamed to stand by and see injustice done to any other; and in this, I feel assured, I but speak the sentiments of those I represent.

[Mr. Benton here said, he could answer the question put to the Chairman of the Committee on Finance (Mr. Wright) with more precision than he had done it. He held in his hand the answer of the Secretary of the Treasury to the question; for the Secretary had been applied to for information as to the operation of the Salt Bill on the finances. The answer shows it will save money-that it will save the treasury from loss. The bill is to repeal the salt tax and the fishing bounties, and allowances founded upon them. Now, the question is, what is the product

of the tax, and what the amount of the bounties and allowances? and the answer is here (holding up a sheet of paper). The answer is, that for this year the tax exceeds the bounties and allowances only by $110,000; and after 1842, when the Compromise Act takes full effect, will fall short of these bounties and allowances about the one-half! This was an effect of that act, passed through Congress without leave to amend it; and by which duties are reduced without a corresponding reduction of drawbacks and allowances founded upon them. But he would not go further into that subject at present: the time was at hand when he should show, with the proof in hand, the operation of that act, which was made out of doors, and rushed through Congress without allowing an i to be dotted, or a t to be crossed. Mr. Verplanck's bill to reduce and regulate the duties was baffled for months, that the administration should not have the credit of settling the question which the Presidential election had already decided; and while that bill was baffled in the House, another was concocted out of the House, which was not a settlement but an adjournment of the tariff question-which adjourned it from the time when the country was ready to settle it, to a time when they will not even be thinking about it!]

MR. CALHOUN, I rise simply to correct the erroneous statement of the Senator who has just taken his seat. He affirmed, as a fact, that the two extremes united to defeat the bill to reduce the tariff, introduced by Mr. Verplanck, in the session of 1832-3—meaning the advocates of the protective tariff and the State Rights men of the South. Now, Sir, I hold the journals of that session in my hand. I hastily turned to votes on the bill while the Senator was making his remarks. I have looked at two decided votes, in which the yeas and nays were called, on that occasion, the only ones that I had time to examine; and I find that Mr. McDuffie and my other friends, as far as I have had time to examine their names, voted with Mr. Verplanck himself, and I will leave it to the Senate to decide whether he opposed his own bill or not.

The truth is, the bill failed in spite of our support; and

its failure, notwithstanding the urgent necessity of avoiding civil conflict at the time, is proof conclusive, let who will say to the contrary, that nothing short of the means resorted to by South Carolina would have brought to the ground the odious and oppressive system against which it was pointed.

REMARKS

In reply to the Speech of Mr. Webster on the Report of the Select Committee, in reference to the Assumption of State Debts; made in the Senate, March 3d, 1840.

[THE Report of the Select Committee on the assumption of the debts of the States being under consideration, and Mr. Webster having concluded his remarks, in opposition to the views and opinions expressed by Mr. Calhoun in his speech on the same subject a few weeks previously (Feb. 5th, 1840), the latter rose and said:-]

Ir affords me pleasure to say, that the Senator has discussed the questions on which he has touched, in a calm and liberal manner, worthy of their magnitude, and honorable to himself; and I sincerely hope that, when the general revision of the tariff, which must come up at the next session, shall be under consideration, the discussion will partake of the same temperate character. I, for one, pledge myself to meet the question with the utmost candor and fairness,having a single eye to the common interest of the whole, as far as it may be consistent with justice to the parts. The first point which the Senator has made the subject of his remarks that duties on exports and imports were virtually the same, as far as the staple States are concerned-was not advanced by me as an argument bearing on the portion of