Here then, sir, is a calculation made at the utmost possible point at which importations can be made, and based upon the actual cost of the goods in a foreign market, as derived from facts well settled by the testimony of our manufacturers themselves. What, then, is the result! It is, Mr. Chairman, that at the highest extreme of each minimum, the protection is more than the difference in the cost of the wool in the two countries, and therefore more than is required.

If, then, the cost of the wool, and the cost of manufacturing it in this country, are equal; if the cost of manufacturing is as cheap here as it is in England; if the cost of wool in this country is greater than it is in England by 65 per cent., as an average, upon the English cost; and if I have shown that the bill, as reported by the Commit tee on Manufactures, covers this difference in the price of wool, and even goes beyond it, I have shown enough for my purpose.

The American Manufacturer has, by the bill as report ed, all the protection which he swears that he needs. Here I should remark that these tables are cast upon the assumption that 65 per cent. is the true difference

MARCH 10, 1828.]

Tariff Bill.

[H. OF R.

as reported by the committee, furnish an effectual check
to these frauds? That bill proposes a duty of 7 cents,
specifically, upon every pound of wool imported, and
a further duty upon all wool of 40 per cent. ad valorem.
The duty at that rate, upon one pound of wool worth 16
cents in the foreign market, would be about 14 cents;
and any attempt to disguise its quality, by means which
should add to its weight, would only increase the duty by
7 cents upon every pound weight added. This view of
the case must certainly convince even the honorable chair-
man himself, that this provision of the bill is to be pre-
ferred, and that his amendment only proclaims a bounty
upon frauds in the importation of coarse wools.

amounts to more than 7 per cent. upon the value of the ly 16 cents, and will by that same amendment only be cloth, or 14 per cent. upon the value of the wool. At charged with a duty of 15 per cent. ad valorem, equal the highest extreme of the next minimum, $1 00, the ex-upon the 2 pounds of wool and dirt, to 2 64-100 cents.— cess is 15 per cent. upon the cloth, or 30 per cent. upon Here, then, you will have the same pound of wool import. the wool, and this again is the least excess to be found in ed, and consequently conflicting with a pound of equal the bill, with the exception of that at 50 cents. Will it quality of our own wool, while, by this simple fraud, then be contended, by the friends of protection, that wool 17 36-100 cents are saved upon the duty it should pay is to rise in price, by the operation of protecting laws, be- an amouut greater than the cost of the pound of wool itself yond either of these rates of increase? If not, then the in the foreign market, and the same wool would pay a duties proposed by the bill will still be a sufficient protec-duty of 2 64-100, instead of 20 cents. Does, then, the bill tion to the manufacturer. It now then remains for me to answer a very few of the arguments used by the hon. chairman, [Mr. MALLARY] and as I suppose, intended to apply to the amendment he has offered, although he did not offer the amendment until after he closed his remarks. The first position of his which I shall notice, is, that duties upon imports, imposed with a view to protection, do not operate as taxes upon consumers. To this position I fully consent, and I had supposed that it was conceded by all the friends of the protecting system. The arguments of the hon. gentleman, to prove its correctness, are certainly sound, if his data are correct. He instanced cotton cloth costing now in our market 16 cents, and also 9 cents per yard, and conclusively showed, as I understood him, although I was unable to follow accurately the calculation, that the present duty upon these cloths is nearly equal to their market value, and that, upon the principle that the duty is a tax, if that should be repealed, you would have the cloths for two or three cents a yard. He also noticed the article of cheese, and showed equally clearly, if I understood him, that, upon the same principle, if the duty upon cheese was repealed, you would not only have your pound of cheese for nothing, but would be entitled to a cent or two for taking it. He also showed us that upon nails nearly the same effect would follow. To these reasons, sir, I can add nothing. They seem to me perfectly conclusive.

The hon. chairman also laid down another proposition to which I am compelled to give my assent. It was, that the whole market for raw wool in this country, must be to our own manufacturers. This, sir, is undeniably true. It must be idle for our farmers to expect to export wool, when it is now 65 per cent. cheaper abroad than it is here. The only market our farmer can have for his wool must be at home. This market our manufacturers do and must control; and they will always regulate it by the price they can get for their cloths.

To another of the arguments used by the gentleman I To convince us that there is not cannot give my assent. at present a supply of wool in this country, he estimates, from what data I know not, that if this bill passes, an addition of 134 millions of pounds of wool will be required to supply the place of that which will be excluded. This must be assuming that not only foreign wool, but foreign cloth, will cease to be imported. Now, sir, from 6 to 64 millions of dollars in value is the whole amount of importations of wool and woollens which you can exclude by any law. Of this value less than half will be wool. Will it then require 13 millions of pounds of wool, or the growth of 5 millions of sheep, to furnish this value? It

cannot be so.

The honorable chairman also made several calculations to show the effect of this bill upon the manufacturers ; but I could not follow him so as to obtain any thing more than his results, and I hope he will correct me if I do not state them correctly. I understood him to say, in relation to the first or 50 cent minimum proposed by the bill, that, without any reference to the proposed increase of duty upon wool, the manufacturer was made worse by 3 cents upon each square yard of cloth than he is by the present law. This is not so; for at the extreme point of that Another position of the hon. chairman, was, that a minimum of 50 cents value, the duty is only less by 2 supply of coarse wool is not produced in this country.-cents upon the yard of cloth; while at 45 cents value it To the correctness of this proposition I entirely dissent, and I have before give the reasons which induce me to do so, and which, I trust, have been a satisfactory answer to the assertion.

is precisely the same as the present duty, and at every value below that sum it is rapidly and materially increased; and while, too, the cloths now paying a duty of 25 per cent. fall within this minimum, and must pay from 80 to 48 per cent. But the honorable chairman says, the bill, as reported by the committee, will increase the cost of the wool required to make each yard of cloth, 15 cents, and that this increase in the price of the wool is to be thrown entirely against the manufacturer, and, added to the reduction of the duty upon the cloth, is to make him 17 cents worse upon each yard of cloth than he now is.

As to the frauds alleged to be committed in the importation of those coarse wools, the honorable chairman has given all the answer which he could have given; that, if these wools are imported in a foul state to disguise their quality, they will necessarily lose in cleansing, and that loss must operate to increase the duty upon the cleansed wool. This is true, practically, to a certain extent, but not to the extent which the gentleman seems to sup- Here I meet an argument, Mr. Chairman, which, compose. But, sir, suppose it to have been true up to this ing from the source it does, greatly surprises me. Are we time, what effect has it upon the subject now before the then, the friends of protection, to contend that a duty imcommittee? We are now to reason, not upon the exist-posed upon an article, with a view to its protection, is to ing law, but upon the effect of the law which we are about to pass. Let us then see what will be the inducements to these frauds, if the amendment proposed by the honorable chairman, [Mr. MALLARY] is adopted. One pound of wool, worth in a foreign market 16 cents, will, by that amendment, pay 20 cents duty. Mix with that pound of wool 1 pound of dirt, making two pounds in weight, and worth 8 cents per pound, and what duty uill it then pay? The two pounds will still be worth on

raise its price to the amount of the duty? Are we now to admit that a duty upon imports, for protecting the industry of this country, is a tax upon the consumer to the amount of the duty? Is this sound in principle, that the whole duty imposed is to be added to the price of the article? Is a pound of wool now costing 17 cents in this country, by the operation of this duty upon wool, to have added to it 7 cents, the specific duty proposed, and then 40 per cent. upon its value, making in all more than 14

cents, to arrive at its price in the market? If this be true as to wool, is it not equally true as to cloths? And are the values of cloths to advance in price equal to the -amount of duty proposed to be levied upon them? Is the yard of cloth, costing now 50 cents, to cost 66 cents because 16 cents duty is imposed upon it? Is the yard of cloth, now worth 60 cents, to sell at $1 in the market because 40 cents duty is imposed upon it? Is this to be the effect throughout this bill, and in regard to the duties proposed by the amendment, if that is adopted? Sir, it is not, it will not be so; and if the honorable chairman had examined the effects of this argument, he would not have used it, nor would he have gone into calculations based upon it. The principle of it is not sound, and so I supposed him and myself had agreed in a former position of his, which I have already noticed.

Deduct present duty on wool, 30 per cent. on
25 cents,

Excess of duty over present,

Proposed duty on cloth,
Deduct present duty,

At this rate of calculation, therefore, the manufacturer is better by the amendment than he is by the bill only as 4-5 of a cent is more than 5-6 of a cent. I understood the chairman to take, in making this calculation, 1 pounds of wool for a yard of cloth, Should he be correct in this, although it would not alter the relative proportions of the bill and amendment, yet it would, in this mode of estimation, shew the amendment to be considerably the worse for the manufacturer.

But, sir, I have made some very short calculations upon the chairman's own principle, to compare the effect of the amendment with the bill reported by the committee, even upon the supposition that that principle is well founded. But before I examine them I will repeat what I The next calculation was upon carpets. Here I should understood to be one of the principles of calculation, used say, sir, that I, as one member of the Committee on Manby the honorable chairman. I did understand him, in ufactures, was mistaken, and I believe the majority of the the estimates he gave, not only to assume that the price of committee were. I did suppose, and I think they did, wool would be raised to the full amount of the duty, but that the carpeting now paying a duty of 25 cents the also to assume that the ad valorem duty imposed by the square yard, would fall within the $1 00 minimum, and bill was 50 per cent., and to make his calculations accord- therefore would, by the bill, pay a duty of 40 cents the ingly. I was then correct in my understanding. I had square yard, and I am not now satisfied that it will not. hoped that I was mistaken, as the bill does not in fact But it is said by some, that this is not the case; and so propose an ad valorem duty upon wool of but 40 per cent. far as I am acquainted, it has been distinctly understood with a recommendation for a progressive advance of duty by every member of that committee, except one, who is of 5 per cent. annually, until it shall reach 50 per cent., opposed entirely to the system, that the bill should be which will not be until two years from the 30th of June amended so as to render this duty certain upon these next; and as this progressive advance of duty is precisely goods. This was stated by the honorable chairman, but such as had been urged by the honorable chairman, and not until after he had given us calculations as to the ef such as he has provided for in his proposed amend-fect of the bill in its present shape. I have therefore onment, I had hoped, if the bill reported by the committee ly to say, sir, in relation to my mistake, that I took the was to be represented by figures, to go out to the public, Harrisburg propositions for the directory in making my it would be represented as it is, and not to be what time propositions upon woollens; and, as carpetings were not may make it hereafter. mentioned in their proposed alterations of duty, I overlooked them under the impression I have just stated. I will further refer the honorable chairman to his own proposed amendment upon this subject. That proposes a duty of twenty-two cents the square yard upon all goods falling within the 50 cent minimium. If these carpetings I will take the highest extreme of the minimum as the fall within it, he will then only impose a duty of 22 cents, point upon which the Chairman calculated. A square instead of the 25 cents imposed by the present law. The yard of cloth will cost 50 cents, and the wool, being half, bill, therefore, will reduce this duty 9 cents, and the chairwill cost 25 cents. A reference to the testimony will man's amendment 3 cents on each yard. But should this show that 14 lbs. of wool will be required to make a yard duty be reduced? Does he wish and intend to reduce of the cloth. This will bring the wool at 20 cents per it? I understand him to assert that he does. I, sir, had pound, and therefore it cannot come in under the denomina- no such intention. I had supposed that the manufacturers tion of 8 cent wool,by the provision contained in the amend-of this article also wanted further protection. This, how.ment. The comparison will then stand as follows, upon the supposition that the cost of the wool is to be increased by the amount of the duty :

The first calculation of the honorable chairman was in relation to the first or 50 cent minimum. I will present, ⚫ upon that minimum, for thepurpose of a comparison between the bill and the proposed amendment, the following calculation.

ever, will account for my mistake, if it is one.

The chairman further made estimates upon cloth at one dollar, and at 75 cents the square yard. I will institute the same comparisons between the bill and amendment upon these estimates.

In cloth at $1 per square yard the wool will be half, 50 cents, and at 14 lbs. to the yard, the wool will cost 331 cents per pound.

Committee's Bill.

Specific duty on 14 pounds at 33 cents
40 per cent. on 50 cents, value of wool

· 00 10

- 00 18

·00 071

$00 10

00 20

114
2층

- 13 8.10

Specific duty on 14 pounds wool, cost 20 cts, $ov 25
No ad valorem duty.

00 6 2-3

Manufacturer worse on a yard of cloth

00 8 1-6

Mallary's Amendment.

Specific duty on 14 pounds of wool, (being all the duty proposed by the amendment) at 33 cents

Deduct present duty, 30 per ct. on 50 cts, value of wool

$00 30
00 15

00 15

00 66 23

00 51 2-3 Manufacturer better on yard of cloth Cloth at 75 cents per square yard, the wool will be half, 37 cents, and at 14 lbs. to the yard, will cost 25 cents per pound. Committee's Bill. Specific duty on 14 lbs. wool, at 25 cents 40 per cent. on 37 cents, value of wool

00 15

00 25

00 114

[H. OF R.

will pay 20 cents per square yard, instead of 16 2-3 cents, the present rate of duty;

"Those costing two dollars and fifty cents will pay 100 cents, instead of 83;

"Those costing four dollars will pay 160 cents, instead of 133;

"Those costing six dollars, will pay 240 cents, instead of 200.

"The advance of duties asked for is not large; but the request being granted, the duties intended to be paid will be paid, or nearly so, except when smuggled; the difference between the minimums, as regulated by the square yard, being so considerable, that fraudulent invoices will seldom be offered, and more rarely pass thro' the custom houses-if the appraisers, with moderate industry, perform their office.

"In objection to, this scheme of proposed duties, it will be said, (as it was said about cottons, and last year about woollens,) that the duties payable will be enormous, &c. Thus it will be calculated-that cloth costing 51 cents per square yard, will be rated as though it cost 250 cents per square yard, and be subject to a duty of 100 cents per square yard, two hundred per cent., or twice the amount of the original cost of the article, one cent ex$00 10 cepted, and we shall have many great speeches about that. "And this is very true. We pretend not to deny or disguise it. Yet, with such a law, who would be fool enough to import cloth costing 51 cents per square yard, and pay a duty of 100 cents per square yard upon it, when he might import cloth at 50 cents, or a little 00 14 less, and pay only 20 cents duty? It is absurd to suppose that any such cloth will ever be imported. The foreign manufacturers and importers would adapt all the cloths designed for our markets exactly to the minimums established, or a little below them, and then would pay only 6 2-3 per cent. more duty than was intended that they should pay by the tariff of 1824; and this advance, to favor the manufacturers, will not repay them, for the present, the reduction of their profits, because of the proposed advance of duty upon imported wool-admitting that all which is asked for wool and woollens shall be granted by Congress. This is practical truth."

00 15

00 003

Specific duty on 14 lbs. wool, at 25 cents per lb. $00 30
Deduct present duty, 30 per cent.

00 114

00 18

00 75

And again, in reference to their views of the operation of the system they had proposed, and of the effect of imposing duties upon the price of the article protected, they say :

00 561 Thus much, sir, for calculations made upon the principle that duties upon imports are taxes upon consumers to the amount of the duty; and now I leave the choice of "To be sure, this plan would secure to our own manthe bill or the amendment to the cominittee, if the choice ufacturers the home market for those kinds of cloths for is to be made upon this principle. In the first minimum which American wool is particularly fitted; and this is they do not materially differ. At the highest extreme of every way desirable, to cause a brisk demand for such the second, if the bill be adopted, the balance will stand wool and encourage the manufacture of it. And the between 8 and 9 cents, upon a yard of cloth, against the minimums will powerfully check all attempts at mono. manufacturer; while, if the amendment is adopted, the poly' and 'extortion,' should the domestic competition But these cannot be really feared balance will stand more than 50 cents in his favor upon a fail to prevent them. yard of cloth, now costing one dollar. At the medium of by any who dispassionately consider the subject, and rethis same minimum, the amount will be all but exactly flect that every article, the manufacture of which is probalanced by the bill. By the amendment, the manufac-tected, is cheaper than the like foreign article at its place turer will have the advantage to the amount of about 56 cents, upon a yard of cloth now worth 75 cents. This is upon the principle that the price of the cloth will rise to the amount of the duty, as well as the wool; and surely it will not be contended that the rule is applicable to the one, and not to the other.

But, sir, it is not applicable to either. Such was not the doctrine of the convention, which adopted the provisions contaned in this amendment and to show what rates of increase of the present duty that convention intended practically to impose, I will read from their report, as I will also to show what were their opinions as to this allegation, that the imposition of a duty is to enhance the price of the article upon which it is imposed. The convention say, in reference to the propositions they had agreed upa: "Goods costing 50 cents per square yard,

of exportation. Witness cotton goods, and the triumphant state of our protected navigation."

Thus, sir, it would seem that this convention did not intend to impose a greater operative duty than about six and two-thirds per cent. in addition to that already imposed by law. Does then the bill, as reported by the committee, fail in any instance to give that increase of the present duty? It does not, even at the highest extremes of the respective minimums except in the 50 cts. minimum. I am aware that the committee have interposed an additional minimum at $1. But, sir, I had supposed that the object of establishing this minimum principle was, not so much to produce a practical increase of the duty, as to prevent frauds in the faithful and just collection of the duties intended to be imposed. I well know that the necessary effect of adopting this form of a law would be a consider

H. of R.]

:

able increase of the nominal rate of duty, and I also had licy by which I was actuated in agreeing to this bill, I supposed that another necessary effect of it would be to hope I shall not be represented as affecting a friendship cause a total exclusion at certain points of each minimum, for the poor which I do not feel. I do believe that eveand thus, as the convention say, "secure to our own ry possibility of monopoly upon the cloths they are com manufactures the home market," for such cloth as should pelled to purchase, should be guarded against; and, Mr. be excluded. But I did also suppose, that if each mini- Chairman, if I ask protection for the poor against the rich, mum was so far removed from the other as to produce no for those who have not capital against those that have, confusion in determining the description of cloth falling I only ask it for myself; and therefore my request should within each, this was all that was required. If I have not be considered as affected. But this bill does furnish, been correct in this opinion, there certainly can be no in its present shape, all the protection which the manudifficulty between the two lowest minimums in the bill. facturer needs, upon every description of cloth embraced In so low priced woollen cloths as those costing 50 cents, in it, the raw material remaining as at present. and those costing one dollar per square yard only, a small As to the duty proposed upon wool operating to in difference in value must create a very palpable distinc- crease that price, what does the bill do? It does all that tion in the quality. I have not, however, heard any dif- can be done. It puts the wool market into the hands of ficulty upon this point urged as an objection to the bill. the manufacturer, and he must and will control it. Will On the contrary, sir, I urged this easy distinction in he then raise the price of wool, unless the price of cloths the qualities of coarse cloths, as one merit of the bill. is raised also. Will he give more for wool than the price It will ensure a rigid collection of the duty; and will, of his cloths will warrant? I know, sir, I shall be asked, therefore, in these low minimums, exclude all cloths fall- why then propose to increase the duty on wool? I do ing below the highest extreme of each. But, sir, take not expect to raise the price of the article by doing so, no minimum between fifty cents and $2 50, and what will unless the effect of the bill should be to raise the price of be the effect? You will necessarily exclude all cloths cloths so as to warrant it. But, I do expect it will extend between 50 cents and 2 dollars the square yard, at the the demand for domestic wool; that it will give this the least, and probably the exclusion will go to a greater place of the foreign wool. The farmer must go to the value. What description of cloths will you then em- manufacturer for a market for his wool. I would make brace The 50 cents minimum reaches, and acts upon, this obligation reciprocal. I would compel the manufacflannels, baizes, and other thin cloths, upon which, I be- turer to go to the farmer for his supply of wool. Then lieve, it is admitted that sufficient protection is furnished the regulation of the price would be reciprocal between by the bill. It also reaches another description of cloths: them. But now the manufacturer has a double advan I mean negro cloths; upon which I have before remark- tage. He can choose between the foreign and the doed, that the duty would be much greater than by any mestic wool, while much of the foreign is introduced former law and still the committee have fixed the nearly free of duty. In relation, further, to this argument, specific duty upon that minimum as low as they sup- that the increase of duty upon wool will increase the price posed would be sure to furnish the required protection.has that been the effect of the increase of duty imposAnother part of the policy of the committee, adopted ed by the tariff of 1824? Has not the price of wool been from the same sense of justice, was to impose a very light constantly and rapidly diminishing since the passage of additional duty upon the cloths worn by the common labor that law? It has, sir, nor was this reduction of price ocing classes at the North. These cloths are mostly em- casioned by the imposition of the duty; but it has been braced within the minimum, inserted in the bill, between checked by it. Repeal the duty, and would wool rise in 50 cents and 1 dollar. Adopt, then, the amendment, price? No, sir, not while wool abroad remains so low, totally exclude those cloths, as I have shown this will do, nor while cloths remain at their present prices. Give and, I ask where is the minimum, in the language of the the manufacturer the protection he needs, as against the Harrisburg Convention, which will powerfully check foreigner, and then he will regulate the wool market as his all attempts at monopoly and extortion," in its applica- business will warrant. Whence then is this alarm on the tion to this description of cloth? What guard will this subject of an increased duty on wool? I do not see the class of our citizens have against the monopoly of our own cause of it. The experience of the past does not warmanufacturers? They will have none, sir; and the rant it, and I do not believe the evils predicted will be at cloths worn by them are those which you ought to touch all realized. lightly, if at all. After you get beyond $2 50, as the price of a square yard of cloth, it matters little what duty you impose. The cloth then becomes emphatically a luxury, and the duty falls upon those able to bear it, if it shall operate, as is here contended, to raise the price; and if the funds of the purchaser are not equal to the advanced price, he has only to drop down to the lower minimum, and purchase his cloth of a little coarser quality. But, sir, this cannot be said of the cloths falling within the 50 cent minimum. Here there is no falling price. This embraces all, and is the lowest point. Nor can it be said with more propriety of the cloths falling between the 50 cent and 1 dollar minimum. No cloths below 50 cents can answer their use. The negro cloths cannot and will not be worn by the Northern laborers. Neither their climate nor their feelings will permit it. What, then is the character of the bill? Its policy is to reduce The honorable Secretary says-"Moreover, the further the duty to the lowest practicable point upon the coarse encouragement of manufactures by legislative means, and common cloths, and to increase it ratably upon the would be but a cour.terbalance, and at most partial one, fine. Hence the duty is depressed as low as possible up to the encouragement to agriculture by legisative means, on the 50 cent minimum, and not quite so rigidly de- standing out in the very terms upon which the public pressed upon that between 50 cents and 1 dollar, while, lands are sold. It is not here intended to make the sysupon the finer qualities, it is much increased beyond ei- tem of selling off the territorial domain of the Union, a subther. And, sir, while I declare this to have been the po-ject of any commentary, and still less of anycomplaint.

The objection, however, to the amendment is double. It will not provide for the consumption of our coarse wools, and it will permit the importation of the fine foreign wools assorted, at a great reduction of the present duty, and which will come in direct competition with our own fine assorted wools.

But, Mr. Chairman, upon what principles are we to settle the provisions of this bill? Have I mistaken them? I have examined the report from the Secretary of the Treasury-a detailed, and in some respects, an able document, and I find, in that report, doctrines upon this subject, to which, if I understand them, I cannot subscribe. I will trouble the committee with reading a short extract from this executive paper, and I shall have finished my task, as painful to myself as it has been tedious to the House.