even that, I fear, it is intended to set aside by the juggle of home valuation. If there be any part of that act more sacred than another, it is that which provides that there shall be no duty imposed after the 30th of June next except for revenue, and no revenue raised but what may be necessary to the economical administration of the government. It was for that the act was passed, and without which it would not have existed. If that was not apparent on the face of the act itself, the causes which led to its adoption would clearly prove it. It is sufficient, in this connexion, to remind the Senate that the object of the act was to terminate the controversy between the State of South Carolina and this government, growing out of the tariff of 1828. The object of the state, as far as it was individually concerned, was twofold-to put down the protective policy, and to protect herself against high duties, even for revenue, when it could be avoided by due regard to economy. To secure the former, the provision was inserted that no duty should be laid but for revenue; and the latter, that no revenue should be raised but what was necessary for the economical administration of the government. Without these provisions, I, as her representative on this floor, would never have given my assent to the act; and, if I had, the state would never have acquiesced in it. I speak with perfect confidence, for even with these important provisions, she reluctantly assented to the compromise. Besides these, there was another object, in which the whole Union was deeply concerned, which influenced her in the step she then took; and that was to guard against the dangerous consequences of an accumulation of a large surplus revenue in the treasury after the payment of the public debt. While defending herself, and the portion of the Union in which her lot is cast, against an unconstitutional and oppressive measure, she was not unmindful of her Federal duties and obligations, nor did she permit her fidelity to the Union and the government to be impaired in her resistance to oppression. She had the sagacity to see, long in advance, the corrupting and dangerous consequences of a large and permanent surplus, of which experience has since given such calamitous evidence; and has the merit of taking the most intrepid stand against it, while others were unheeding, or indifferent to consequences. To guard against this danger, every article imported that did not come in conflict with the protective policy was made, by the Compromise Act, duty free to the 30th of June next, which, in the aggregate, equalled in value those on which the duties were retained; that is, one half the duties were forthwith repealed; but to prevent the possibility of abuse, and to guard in the most effectual manner the two leading provisions of the act, it was expressly provided that, after that time, all articles of imports, except a small list contained in the 5th section, should be subject to duty, and that no duty should thereafter exceed 20 per cent. ad valorem. The intention of the former provision was to prevent the enlargement of the free list, and thereby raising the duties proportionally higher on the dutied articles; and of the latter, that, under no pretext whatever, for protection or revenue, should duties be raised above 20 per cent., which was regarded as the extreme limits to which they ought ever to be carried for revenue. These were the guards on which I relied to prevent a return to the protective policy, or the raising of the revenue beyond what the necessary and economical wants of the government might require; and which, if they should be respected, will prove all-sufficient for the purpose intended.

Having secured these essential points, as far as the state and the Union at large were concerned, the next object was so to reduce the duties on the protected articles as to prevent any shock to the manufacturing interests. The state waged no war against them. Her opposition was to the unconstitutional and oppressive means by which it was sought to promote them at the expense of the other great interests of the community. She wished the manufacturers well; and, in proposing to bring down the duties gradually, through a slow process of many years, to the revenue point, I but faithfully represented her feel

ings. My first proposition was to allow seven years, and to take one seventh annually off; but, finally, I acquiesced in extending the time two years more, and to reduce the duties as provided for by the act. So far from being an opponent to manufacturing industry, there is not one within the reach of my voice who puts a higher estimate on those arts, mechanical and chemical, by which matter is subjected to the dominion of mind. I regard them as the very basis of civilization, and the principal means designed by Providence for the future progress and improvement of our race. They will be found in progress to react on the moral and political world, and thereby producing greater and more salutary changes in both than all other causes combined.

Such are the leading objects of the Compromise Act. It is admitted, on all hands, that the provisions in favour of the manufacturing interests have been faithfully observed on our part. We have patiently waited the nine years of slow reduction, and resisted every attempt to make changes against the manufacturing interest, even when they would have operated in our favour, and for which we have received the thanks of those who represented it on this floor. And now, when the time has arrived when it is our turn to enjoy its benefits, they who called on us to adhere to the act when the interest of the manufacturers was at stake, and commended us for our fidelity to the compromise, turn round, when it suits their interest, and coolly and openly violate every provision in our favour, with the single exception already noticed, as I shall next proceed to show.

For that purpose it will be necessary to go back to the extraordinary session, for then the violation commenced. Going, then, back, and passing over minor points, I charge upon the senator and his friends, in the first place, a palpable infraction of the compromise, in raising the duties without making the least effort to reduce the expenditures of the government to what was necessary to its economical administration. The act is positive, that no more revenue should be raised than what such administration might require: a provision just as essential as that which requires that no duty should be imposed but for revenue. Acting, then, in the spirit of the act, the first step towards a revision of the duties should have been to ascertain what amount of revenue would be required for the economical administration of the government. Was that done? Nothing like it; but the very reverse. Not an effort was made to ascertain what the wants of the treasury required-not one to reduce the expenditures, although the senator and his party had come in on a solemn pledge to make a great reduction. Instead of that, every effort was made to increase the expenditures and add to the loans, forgetful alike of the compromise and pledges to the people, and, at the same time, to reduce the revenue by giving away the income from the lands, with the intention of increasing the duties on the imports.

The next charge I make is, a great enlargement of the list of free articles by the act increasing the duties, passed at the same session, in direct violation of the fifth section of the Compromise Act. Foreseeing that the protective system might again be renewed, and high duties imposed, simply by extending the list of free articles, and throwing the whole burden of supporting the government on the articles selected for protection, that section enumerates a short list of articles which should be duty free after the 30th of June next, and provided that all which were not enumerated should be subject to duties after that period, in order to guard against such abuses. In the face of this provision, the act alluded to increased the list of free articles manifold, taking the amount stated by the senator, as contained in that list, to be correct.

Such were the infractions of the act during that session; and it is now proposed by these resolutions to give the finishing blow by raising the duties, on an average, to 30 per centum on all articles not made free, in express violation of the main provision in the compromise, that no duty should be laid above 20 per cent. after the 30th of June next. The senator admits this to be an infrac

tion, but pleads necessity. Now, sir, I admit, if there be indeed a necessityif, after reducing the expenditures of the government to its just and economical wants, and the list of free articles to that provided for in the act, and returning the revenue from the lands to the treasury, there should be a deficit which could not be met without going beyond the 20 per cent., a case would be made that might justify it. But I utterly deny, in the first place, that, if all had been done that ought to have been, there would be any such necessity; and, in the next, the right to plead a necessity of his own creating. I go farther, and call on him to explain how he can, in fairness or honour, after what occurred at the extraordinary session, propose, as he has in these resolutions, to repeal the provision in the Distribution Act which makes it void if the duties should be raised above 20 per cent. It is well known to all that it could not have passed without the insertion of that provision, and that on its passage depended that of the Bankrupt Bill. Now I ask him how, after having secured the passage of two such important measures, can he reconcile it with what is fair or honourable, to turn round and propose to repeal the very provision by which their passage was effected?

But the senator denies that the necessity is of his creating, and insists that, if the revenue from the land were restored, rigid economy enforced, and all the provisions of the compromise respected, there would not be sufficient income to meet the necessary and economical wants of the government. I take issue with him on the fact, and shall now proceed to show that, even on his own data, there would be ample revenue without raising the duties above 20 per cent.

According to the estimates of the senator, the whole amount of appropriations, excluding public debt, required for the service of the year, permanent and current, under the various heads of civil list and miscellaneous, army and navy in all their branches, is twenty millions five hundred thousand dollars. To which he adds for other appropriations, not included in these, one million five hundred thousand dollars, which can mean nothing but contingent, unforeseen expenditures, and for the debt, two millions of dollars; making, in the aggregate, twentyfour millions of dollars. To this he proposes to add two millions more annually, as a reserved fund to meet contingencies; to which I object, on the ground that the object is already provided for by the one million five hundred thousand dollars for appropriations not included in the twenty millions five hundred thousand. There can be no demand on the treasury but through appropriations, and there can be no meaning attached to contingent appropriations but such unforeseen expenditures as are not usually included under the various heads of civil list, miscellaneous, army, and navy. The senator has clearly attempted to make a distinction that does not exist, and, in consequence, made a double provision for the same object. Of the two, I take the less sum, as I regard it ample as a permanent contingent fund, which will make his estimate for the year, thus corrected, to be twenty-four millions of dollars-a sum surely amply large.

Let us now turn to the ways and means to meet this large demand on the treasury. The first item is the revenue from the land, which ought to yield, under proper management, an average of at least three millions five hundred thousand dollars for the next five years, and which would reduce the amount to be provided for from the imposts to twenty millions five hundred thousand dollars. From this there ought to be deducted at least five hundred thousand dollars from the saving that may be made in the collection of the customs, which the senator estimates at one million six hundred thousand. I find, taking a series of years, under the tariff of 1828, with its exorbitant duties, and the consequent great increase of expenditures to guard against smuggling and frauds, that the collection of about an equal sum cost 4 per cent. Allowing the same rate under the more simple and moderate system of duties, according even to the scheme of the senator, and the cost of collection, instead of the sum proposed, would be about eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars, making a difference

of seven hundred and fifty thousand; but, for the facility of counting, and to be liberal, I allow but half a million for saving. That would reduce the sum to be provided for by duties to twenty millions of dollars; and the next question is, What rate of duty will be necessary to meet that amount?

Here, again, I take the estimate of the senator as the basis of my calculation. He bases his estimates of the imports on the probable amount of the exports, adding fifteen per cent. to the former for the profits of freight and trade. On this basis he estimates the probable amount of imports at one hundred and nineteen millions of dollars, a sum probably too low, taking the average of the next five years, provided the duties shall be moderate, and no adverse unforeseen cause should intervene. From this sum he deducted ten millions to meet the interest abroad, on account of the debts of the states: a sum, for the reason assigned by the senator from New-Hampshire behind me, too large, at least by three millions of dollars. Deduct seven millions on that account, and there would be left one hundred and twelve millions. The senator next deducted eighteen millions for articles made free by the act of the extra session, not including coffee and tea, which he estimates at twelve millions. I cannot assent to the deduction to the extent stated, as it is clearly against the provisions of the Compromise Act, as beyond the permanent free list provided for by that act. What would be the amount within its limits I have not been able to ascertain; but on the best data I have been able to obtain, I would not suppose that it would much, if any, exceed three millions five hundred thousand dollars, not including gold and silver. I exclude them because they are constantly flowing in and out, according to the demands of trade, the imports of one year becoming the exports of the next, and the reverse, except the small amount that may be permanently added to the circulation or be used in the country. The sum of three millions five hundred thousand dollars deducted from the hundred and twelve millions would leave, on the data assumed, a hundred and eight millions five hundred thousand as the probable annual amount of dutiable articles that would be imported for home consumption. Twenty per cent. on that sum would give twenty-one millions seven hundred thousand dollars, a sum ample to meet the amount estimated, and cover the necessary expenses of collection, and pay the bounties and premiums properly chargeable on the treasury.

But, in making these calculations, I by no means wish to be understood as acquiescing in the estimates which the senator has made of what ought to be the expenditures of the government. I hold them much too high. With an efficient system of administration, actuated by a true spirit of economy, seventeen millions would be ample to meet all expenses, without impairing the efficiency of the government, as I have shown on a former occasion; to raise which, an average duty of twelve or fifteen per cent., instead of twenty, would, with the aid of the revenue from the lands, be abundantly sufficient.

Having now shown that, while the senator professes to respect the compromise, he has in fact violated, or proposes to violate, all the essential provisions of the act, and that his plea of necessity for the proposing to raise the duties above the twenty per cent. utterly fails him, it may be asked, How is this contradiction in his course to be explained? Is he deluded, or does he intend to delude others? To suppose the latter would impeach his sincerity, which I do not intend to question. But how is his delusion to be accounted for? It results from his position.

He is a tariff man, decidedly opposed to free trade. We have his own authority for the assertion. According to his views, free trade is among the greatest curses that could befall the country, and a high protective tariff among the greatest blessings. While he thus thinks and feels, circumstances, not necessary to be explained, have placed him' in such relation to the Compromise Act, that he is sincerely desirous of respecting its provisions; but the misfortune is, that his respect for it is not compatible with his strong attachment to

his long-cherished system of policy. There is no estimating the force of selfdelusion in a position so contradictory, of which the course of the senator on this occasion furnishes a striking illustration. Entertaining the opinion he does, it is natural that he should desire to carry out in practice his high restrictive notions on one side and opposition to free trade on the other; nor is it to be wondered at that his respect for the Compromise Act should have to yield as far as they stand in the way of his favourite system; especially as he has persuaded himself that the experiment, as he chooses to call it, of free trade has utterly failed on trial. Under that impression, he boldly asserted that the reduction of the duties had impaired the productive energy of the country, and has proved a curse not only to the portion of the country which so strongly advocated it, but to the very state by whose efforts the protective policy was overthrown.

Here, again, I take issue on the fact with the senator. I deny, in the first place, that we have had free trade, or anything that comes near to it. It is true that about one half of the articles were made duty free, but on the residue, and they the most important, but a small reduction of duties, comparatively speaking, was made prior to the 1st of January last. Till then, the duty on most of the articles was at a high protective rate. But while I deny that we have had free trade, I equally deny that the reduction which has taken place has in any degree impaired the productive energies of the country, or proved a curse to the staple states. On the contrary, I assert, and shall prove, that its effects has equalled the most sanguine expectation of the friends of free trade, notwithstanding the highly adverse circumstances under which it has taken place; that of a currency fluctuating and deranged, credit universally impaired, the machinery of commerce broken, and our principal customer, on whom we mainly depend for the sales of our produce abroad, and the purchase of our supplies, in a state of the greatest commercial embarrassment. In the midst of all these opposing and formidable difficulties, the productive energies of the country have advanced beyond all former example, under the wholesome stimulus of reduction of duties, as I shall next proceed to show.

I shall draw my facts principally from the annual commercial document from the treasury department, which gives full and authentic information of the commerce and navigation of the year, in all their relations, and shall begin with that portion of our domestic products which is shipped abroad, and which constitutes the basis of our commerce and navigation. I shall not include the imports, not because they would give a less favourable view of our industrial pursuits, but because they would give one that was apparently too favourable during the last four years, owing to the vast extent of loans contracted abroad by many of the states, and which were principally returned in merchandise of various descriptions. Nor shall I include the carrying trade, because it is little affected by the rate of the duties, as they are returned in the shape of drawbacks on reshipment of the imported articles.

In order to have a full and satisfactory view of the relative effects of increasing and reducing the duties on our export trade, I have arranged in table A the aggregate amount of all our domestic exports, including manufactures, for sixteen years, beginning with 1825, the first year under the first tariff laid professedly for protection, and ending with 1840, divided into two equal periods of eight years each; the first ending with 1832, and comprehending the period of the two protective tariffs of 1824 and 1828, and the last extending from the termination of the first to 1840 inclusive. I have not included 1841, because it would impede the facility of comparing the two periods, by making one longer than the other, and not because it would be less favourable than the other years, since the commencement of the reduction. I have extended the first to 1833, notwithstanding the reduction of the duties on coffee, tea, and some other articles began in 1830, and which, as a reference to the table will show, gave a considerable impulse to our export trade in 1831 and 1832, and a corresponding