Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

will not pay for an importation of more than $125,000,000, allowing for the ordinary profits of trade. From this must be deducted $10,000,000 for the interest of debt abroad, which would reduce the imports to $115,000,000. Deduct $10,000,000 more for free articles, immediately connected with the manufacturing operations of the country, and it would reduce the dutiable articles consumed in the country annually to $105,000,000. In the free articles I do not include tea and coffee, which are now so. It would take an average duty of 26 per cent. to raise $27,000,000 on $105,000,000. Can you, in the present state of things, raise your duties to that high standard?

I pass over the effects of such a duty in repressing the export trade, on which the import depends. Between them there is the most intimate relation. Each limits the amount of the other. In the long run, it is acknowledged that the imports cannot, on a fair valuation, exceed the exports. It is not less certain that the same rule applies to the exports, which, in the long run, cannot exceed the imports. And hence, duties on imports as effectually restrict and limit the amount of the exports as if directly imposed on the latter. To repress the one is to repress the other. But, setting aside all considerations of the kind, I directly meet the question, and say that you cannot extort from commerce the amount you propose.

He who would reason from the past on this subject will be greatly deceived. High duties now will not give the revenue they once did. The smuggler forbids. The standard of morals is greatly lowered. The paper system and the protective policy have worked a great and melancholy change in that respect. The country is filled with energetic and enterprising men, rendered desperate by being reduced from affluence to poverty through the vicissitudes of the times. They will give an impulse to smuggling unknown to the country heretofore. The profits of regular business, in the new state of things in which the country is placed, must be low and slow. Fortunes can no longer be made by a single bold stroke; and the impatience and necessities of the large class to which I have alluded, and whose debts will be sponged by the Bankrupt Act, will not submit to recovering their former condition by so slow a process. With high duties, smuggling, then, will open too tempting a field to restore their broken fortunes, not to be entered by many of the large class to which I refer, to which many will be added from the lowered standard of morals, who cannot plead the same necessity. If to this be added the great increased facility for smuggling, both on our Northern, and Eastern, and Southwestern frontiers, it will be in vain to expect to raise the sum proposed from commerce. Not only has the line of frontier along the lakes been greatly lengthened, but the facility of intercourse with them, both by canals and roads, have been increased in a still greater degree. How is smuggling to be prevented along so extended a frontier, with such unlimited facility for practising it? Nor will the supply of smuggled goods be confined to the immediate neighbourhood of the frontier. They will penetrate through the numerous roads and canals leading to the lakes, far inland, and compete successfully with the regular trade in the heart of the country. Nor is it to be doubted but that the British authorities will connive at this illicit trade. Look at the immense interest which they have to turn the trade of our country, as far as possible, through the channel of the St. Lawrence. It will give to Great Britain the entire tonnage to whatever portion of our trade may be turned through that channel--a point so important to her naval supremacy, to which she is ever so attentive. Already great facility is afforded for turning the provision trade, both for the home market and the supply of the West Indies, through it, and with much success.

I was surprised to learn, since the commencement of the session, as I have no doubt most of those who hear me will be, that a place on the St. Lawrence, almost unknown, is already the fourth town in the Union, as to the number of vessels that enter and depart in the year. I refer to St. Vincent, at the outlet

of Lake Ontario. It is the depôt for the British trade which descends the St. Lawrence from our side. To give life and vigour to a vast trade, which gives her the entire tonnage of the outward and inward voyage, is too important to be neglected, particularly as it would so powerfully counteract our high duties, and so greatly widen the field of consumption for her manufactures. Turning to the frontier at the other end of the Union, we shall find a great increase of facility for smuggling in that quarter; but I abstain from enlarging on it for the present.

Taking all these causes together, it cannot be doubted but that smuggling will commence at a much more lower point of duties than it ever has heretofore, and that all calculations of increase of revenue from increase of duties founded on the past will fail. It is the opinion of good judges that it would commence with duties as low as 12 per cent. on such articles as linen and silks; but be that as it may, it may be safely predicted that the scheme of raising the standard of revenue to the present expenditures will fail. I pass over the violation of the compromise, which such a policy necessarily involves, its ruinous effects on the great staples of the country, now suffering under the greatest depression, and that deep discontent which must follow in the quarter that produces them. I shall confine myself simply to the financial question. Regarded in that light, I tell gentlemen that the line of policy they propose will fail. They will have to abandon it, or resort to internal taxes to supply the deficit from commerce. Yes, you must restore the revenue from the lands, economize and retrench, or be forced to resort to internal taxes in the end. Are you prepared for that? I ask those who represent the great sections to the North and East of this, if they have reflected how that portion of the Union would be affected by internal taxes. I refer not to direct taxes, for that, according to the mode prescribed in the Constitution, can never be pushed to any oppressive extreme, but to excises. If you have not, it is time you should; for in the way you are now going, you will soon have to learn experimentally how it will operate.

There never has been a civilized country within my knowledge whose moneyed affairs have been worse managed than ours for the last dozen of years. In 1828 we raised the duties, on an average, to nearly fifty per cent. when the debt was on the eve of being discharged, and thereby flooded the country with a revenue, when discharged, which could not be absorbed by the most lavish expenditures. Hence the double affliction of an accumulating surplus of millions on millions, and of the most wasteful expenditures at the same time. Then came the Compromise Act, which entirely exempted one half of the imports from duties, in order to escape the growing evil of such a surplus, and reduced the one tenth, every two years, on all the duties above twenty per cent., in order to get clear of the protective policy. Under their operation, aided by the Deposite Act, the surplus was absorbed, and the revenue gradually brought down to the proper level; to meet the descending revenue, a reduction of expenditures was commenced, with the intention of equalizing the revenue and expenditures. Then a change of party took place, the one coming in professing a greater love for economy and retrenchment than the one going out; but, instead of fulfilling their promises, the public expenditures have been increased by millions-debts contracted-revenue from the lands squandered-and all this when the income was reduced to the least possible depression. Take all in all, can folly, can infatuation, go farther?

XXXIII.

SPEECH IN SUPPORT OF THE VETO power, Feb. 28, 1842.

MR. CALHOUN said: The senator from Kentucky, in support of his amendment, maintained that the people of these states constitute a nation; that the nation has a will of its own; that the numerical majority of the whole was the appropriate organ of its voice; and that whatever derogated from it, to that extent departed from the genius of the government, and set up the will of the minority against the majority. We have thus presented, at the very threshold of the discussion, a question of the deepest import, not only as it regards the subject under consideration, but the nature and character of our government; and that question is, Are these propositions of the senator true?* If they be, then he admitted the argument against the veto would be conclusive; not, however, for the reason assigned by him, that it would make the voice of a single functionary of the government (the President) equivalent to that of some six senators and forty members of the other house; but for the far more decisive reason, according to his theory, that the President is not chosen by the voice of the numerical majority, and does not, therefore, according to his principle, represent truly the will of the nation.

It is a great mistake to suppose that he is eled simply on the principle of numbers. They constitute, it is true, the principal element in his election, but not the exclusive. Each state is, indeed, entitled to as many votes in his election as it is to representatives in the other house-that is, to its federal population; but to these, two others are added, having no regard to numbers for their representation in the Senate, which greatly increases the relative influence of the small states, compared to the large, in the presidential election. What effect this latter element may have on the numbers necessary to elect a president, may be made apparent by a very short and simple calculation.

The population of the United States, in federal numbers, by the late census, is 15,908,376. Assuming that sixty-eight thousand, the number reported by the committee of the other house, will be fixed on for the ratio of representation there, it will give, according to the calculation of the committee, two hundred and twenty-four members to the other house. Add fifty-two, the number of the senators, and the electoral college will be found to consist of two hundred and seventy-six, of which one hundred and thirty-nine is a majority. If nineteen of the smaller states, excluding Maryland, be taken, beginning with Delaware and ending with Kentucky inclusive, they will be found to be entitled to one hundred and forty votes, one more than a majority, with a federal population of only 7,227,869; while the seven other states, with a population of 8,680,507, would be entitled to but one hundred and thirty-six votes, three less than a majority, with a population of almost a million and a half greater than the others. Of the one hundred and forty electoral votes of the smaller states, thirty-eight would be on account of the addition of two to each state, for their representation in this body, while of the larger there would be but fourteen on that account; making a difference of twenty-four votes on that account, being two more than the entire electoral votes of Ohio, the third state in point of numbers in the Union.

Mr. Clay here interrupted Mr. Calhoun, and said that he meant a majority according to the forms of the Constitution.

Mr. Calhoun, in return, said he had taken down the words of the senator at the time, and would vouch for the correctness of his statement. The senator not only laid down the propositions as stated, but he drew conclusions from them against the President's veto, which could only be sustained on the principle of the numerical majority. In fact, his course at the extra session, and the grounds assumed both by him and his colleague, in this discussion, had their origin in the doctrines embraced in that proposition.

The senator from Kentucky, with these facts, but acts in strict conformity to his theory of the government, in proposing the limitation he has on the veto power; but as much cannot be said in favour of the substitute he has offered. The argument is as conclusive against the one as the other, or any other modification of the veto that could possibly be devised. It goes farther, and is conclusive against the executive department itself, as elected; for there can be no good reason offered why the will of the nation, if there be one, should not be as fully and perfectly represented in that department as in the legislative.

But it does not stop there. It would be still more conclusive, if possible, against this branch of the government. In constituting the Senate, numbers are totally disregarded. The smallest state stands on a perfect equality with the largest-Delaware, with her seventy-seven thousand, with New-York, with her two millions and a half. Here a majority of states control, without regard to population; and fourteen of the smallest states, with a federal population of but 4,064,457, little less than a fourth of the whole, can, if they unite, overrule the twelve others, with a population of 11,844,919. Nay, more: they could virtually destroy the government, and put a veto on the whole system, by refusing to elect senators; and yet this equality among states, without regard to numbers, including the branch where it prevails, would seem to be the favour-. ite with the Constitution. It cannot be altered without the consent of every state; and this branch of the government, where it prevails, is the only one that participates in the powers of all the others. As a part of the legislative department, it has full participation with the other in all matters of legislation, except originating money bills; while it participates with the executive in two of its highest functions, that of appointing to office and making treaties; and in that of the judiciary, in being the high court before which all impeachments are tried. But we have not yet got to the end of the consequences. The argument would be as conclusive against the judiciary as against the Senate, or the executive and his veto. The judges receive their appointments from the executive and the Senate; the one nominating, and the other consenting to and advising the appointment; neither of which departments, as has been shown, is chosen by the numerical majority. In addition, they hold their office during good behaviour, and can only be turned out by impeachment; and yet they have the power, in all cases in law and equity brought before them, in which an act of Congress is involved, to decide on its constitutionality—that is, in effect, to pronounce an absolute veto.

If, then, the senator's theory be correct, its clear and certain result, if carried out in practice, would be to sweep away, not only the veto, but the executive, the Senate, and the judiciary, as now constituted; and to leave nothing standing in the midst of the ruins but the House of Representatives, where only, in the whole range of the government, numbers exclusively prevail. But, as desolating as would be its sweep in passing over the government, it would be far more destructive in its whirl over the Constitution. There it would not leave a fragment standing amid the ruin in its rear.

In approaching this topic, let me premise (what all will readily admit), that if the voice of the people may be sought for anywhere with confidence, it may be in the Constitution, which is conceded by all to be the fundamental and paramount law of the land. If, then, the people of these states do really constitute a nation, as the senator supposes; if the nation has a will of its own, and if the numerical majority of the whole is the only appropriate and true organ of that will, we may fairly expect to find that will, pronounced through the absolute majority, pervading every part of that instrument, and stamping its authority on the whole. Is such the fact? The very reverse. Throughout the wholefrom first to last-from beginning to end-in its formation, adoption, and amendment, there is not the slightest evidence, trace, or vestige of the existence of the facts on which the senator's theory rests; neither of the nation, nor its will,

nor of the numerical majority of the whole, as its organ, as I shall next proceed to show.

The Convention which formed it was called by a portion of the states; its members were all appointed by the states; received their authority from their separate states; voted by states in forming the Constitution; agreed to it, when formed, by states; transmitted it to Congress to be submitted to the states for their ratification; it was ratified by the people of each state in convention, each ratifying by itself, for itself, and bound exclusively by its own ratification; and by express provision it was not to go into operation unless nine out of the twelve states should ratify, and then to be binding only between the states ratifying. It was thus put in the power of any four states, large or small, without regard to numbers, to defeat its adoption; which might have been done by a very small proportion of the whole, as will appear by reference to the first census. That census was taken very shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, at which time the federal population of the then twelve states was 3,462,279; of which the four smallest, Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, and NewHampshire, with a population of only 241,490 (something more than the fourteenth part of the whole), could have defeated the ratification. Such was the total disregard of population in the adoption and formation of the Constitution.

It may, however, be said, it is true, that the Constitution is the work of the states, and that there was no nation prior to its adoption; but that its adoption fused the people of the states into one, so as to make a nation of what before constituted separate and independent sovereignties. Such an assertion would be directly in the teeth of the Constitution, which says that, when ratified, "it should be binding" (not over the states ratifying, for that would imply that it was imposed by some higher authority; nor between the individuals composing the states, for that would imply that they were all merged in one; but) "between the states ratifying the same;" and thus, by the strongest implication, recognising them as the parties to the instrument, and as maintaining their separate and independent existence as states after its adoption. But let that pass. I need it not to rebut the senator's theory-to test the truth of the assertion, that the Constitution has formed a nation of the people of these states. I go back to the grounds already taken: that if such be the fact-if they really form a nation since the adoption of the Constitution, and the nation has a will, and the numerical majority is its only proper organ, in that case the mode prescribed for the amendment of the Constitution would furnish abundant and conclusive evidence of the fact. But here again, as in its formation and adoption, there is not the slightest trace or evidence that such is the fact; on the contrary, most conclusive to sustain the very opposite opinion.

There are two modes in which amendments to the Constitution may be proposed. The one, such as that now proposed, by a resolution to be passed by two thirds of both houses; and the other, by a call of a convention by Congress, to propose amendments, on the application of two thirds of the states, neither of which gives the least countenance to the theory of the senator. In both cases, the mode of ratification, which is the material point, is the same, and requires the concurring assent of three fourths of the states, regardless of population, to ratify an amendment. Let us now pause for a moment to trace the effects of this provision.

There are now twenty-six states, and the concurring assent, of course, of twenty states is sufficient to ratify an amendment. It then results that twenty of the smaller states, of which Kentucky would be the largest, are sufficient for that purpose, with a population, in federal numbers, of only 7,652,097, less by several hundred thousand than the numerical majority of the whole, against the united voice of the other six, with a population of 8,216,279, exceeding the former by more than half a million. And yet this minority, under the amending power, may change, alter, modify, or destroy every part of the Constitution,

« FöregåendeFortsätt »