risen superior to all foreign competition, we have exert ed all our energies to obtain for it a free trade, well knowing that upon equal terms, it must and would be successful against the navigation of any other nation.

Let us now, sir, examine the calculation which the gentleman has made for the purpose of proving that our navigation cannot sustain the additional duties proposed by this bill, upon foreign hemp and foreign iron. The Committee on Manufactures, before they reported their bill to this House in January, 1821, addressed certain ques tions to the mercantile society of New York; two of which, with the answers, I shall take leave to read to the committee.

"Question. What is the cost of a British ship, of say 300 tons ? What of an American of the same force and burthen; and, generally, the difference in the price of shipping, by the ton,in each country, completely equipped? Answer. A British ship of 300 tons, equipped for sea, will cost $24,000, or $80 per ton. An American ship of the same quality, will cost $18,000, or 6) dollars per ton. Question. The quantity of iron and cordage to the 100 tons of shipping?

Answer. It will require four tons of iron, 1,500 pounds of copper bolts, 44 tons cordage, and 20 bolts of duck, to the 100 tons."

In answer to another question, the same society state, that "foreign vessels would not have a preference, in our ports, over Amercan built vessels, unless at a reduction in freight of 25 per cent. or advantages equivalent, at the port of destination."

[APRIL 2, 1828.

very few years, it will reduce the price of those articles below their present value. Upon what principle does our protecting policy rest? It is this: select proper objects, and protect their growth, or their manufacture, whilst in infancy, against destruction from foreign competition, and American skill and American industry will soon furnish them to the consumer cheaper than they can be procured from abroad. This principle lies at the very foundation of the tariff system. Abandon it, and the whole fabric is destroyed. What would the gentleman from Maine say to me, if I were to turn the argument which he has urged in opposition to hemp and iron, against wool and woollens? if I were thus disposed, I might say you have proposed a duty upon these articles, which will greatly increase the price of woollen cloth. The agricultural interest of the country is at present very much depressed. The laboring man, who now earns his daily bread by his daily toil, can scarcely acquire wherewithal to clothe his wife and children, and protect them from the winds of Heaven. His family are already suffering under the pressure of want, and will you grind him to the dust, by taxing the clothing which covers his nakedness, 50 per cent. for the benefit of the wool grower and woollen manufacturer? If I were to use such an argument, and afterwards profess to be a tariff man, I should expect no credit for sincerity. In voting additional protection to wool and woollens, 1 shall act upon the general principles of the system. The growth of wool is congenial to our country, and if we should afford sufficient encouragement to its manufac ture, in the course of a very short time, the industry When the gentleman was estimating the additional tax, and enterprise of our citizens will furnish woollen cloth which he alleges this bill would impose upon the naviga of a better quality, and at a cheaper rate, to the consu tion of the country, and was comparing it with the duties mer, than we pay at present. The much abused Comimposed by the laws of Great Britain upon the importa-mittee of Domestic Manufactures, in the testimony which tion of hemp and of iron, and their manufactures, he must have forgotten that timber was the great and primary material which entered into the construction of a ship. In England they are compelled to purchase this article in foreign countries, and to pay the heavy expense of its transportation, whilst we possess it in abundance at home. This is the reason why a ship of 300 tons, in 1821, could have been built in this country for the sum of 18,000 dollars; whilst the same vessel in England would have cost 24,000 dollars. The gentleman has stated a valuable fact to the committee, in relation to the present cost of ship building. He has informed us that American vessels are built at the present time for 50 dollars per ton. If this information be correct, then the difference between the cost of two vessels of the same quality, and of 300 tons burthen, would amount to 9,000 dollars. What then are we to think of an argument, intended to prove that the addition of 378 dollars to the cost of an American vessel If these principles be correct, in regard to wool and of 500 tons burthen, may probably break down our navi- woollens, I would ask the gentleman from Maine why gation, and drive our flag from the ocean? A ship in they do not apply, with equal force, to the manufacture England costs sixty per cent. more than a ship in this of iron and the growth of hemp? Can it be for one mo country. If the additional duties proposed by this bill ment doubted, that under a proper protection, hemp and should even become a permanent tax upon our ship build- iron can be produced cheaper at home than they can be ing, it would amount to only 23 per cent. upon the first procured from abroad? We have mountains of iron ore cost of the vessel. This would never be felt by our nain many portions of the Union, planted by the hand of vigation. It would be but a drop compared with the nature, near to mountains of coal. Our water-power is ocean. It is both ungrateful and unjust for the naviga- unlimited: we have timber in abundance: we possess tion of the country, after it has been uniformly sustained the capital, the skill, and the enterprise. Can any genby the agricultural interest, to turn round upon its bene- tleman then contend, that the American manufacturer factor and say, that, although you have protected us in of iron will not soon furnish it to the consumer at a lower infancy, and have watched over ourmanhood with parent-price than it can be transported to us from a distant counal tenderness and solicitude, yet we will not, in the day of your distress, grant you the trifling boon which you now solicit.

But I cannot concur in opinion with the gentleman, that the proposed increase of duty upon the hemp and iron, and their manufactures, will, after a short time, be any tax upon our navigation. On the contrary, in a

The

they have presented with their report, have furnished to this House and the Nation a most cheering fact, in relation to our progress in the woollen manufacture. manufacturers themselves have testified, that they can convert wool into cloth at as cheap a rate as they can do it in England. The only difference against them, consists in the higher price of wool in this country than in Great Britain. This inequality will not long exist. Our country is boundless in its capacity for the production of wool. Give us proper protection, and we can pro duce wool enough to clothe the world. The laborer will, therefore, eventually pay less for his clothing, not more. In the quantum of protection to woollens, all I desire is, that the duty may not suddenly be raised to such a standard, as will produce a great appreciation of price, and an immediate pressure upon the country. These are the principles upon which I shall act.

try? That this will be the event, and that at no distant period, I believe as firmly as I do in my own existence. To doubt it, would be to cast a reflection upon the character of my countrymen. The additional duty which the present bill proposes upon iron, is a mere trifle, and will never be felt by the consumer.

Then, in regard to hemp, need I say any thing? I

APRIL 2, 1828.]

Tariff Bill.

[H. OF R.

the purpose of encouraging our ship owners, our farmers ought to be deprived of the markets of their own country, for those agricultural productions which they can supply in abundance I did not expect to have heard such an argument upon this floor.

By encouraging domestic industry, whether it be applied to agriculture or manufactures, you promote the best interests of your navigation. You furnish it with do

has now been clearly ascertained, from the highest authority, that American water-rotted hemp is fully equal, if not superior, to that of Russia. This problem has been solved, and I feel it to be a high honor, that I have been an humble instrument in assisting to dispel the delusion which had existed in regard to American hemp. In the year 1824, I got one of my constituents to water-rot between 7 and 8 hundred weight of hemp. It was received at the navy yard in Philadelphia, by order of the Se-mestic exports to scatter over the world. This is the cretary of the Navy, and the Agent there, at once, pro- true American System. It protects all interests; it abannounced it to be equal to the best water-rotted Russia dons none. It never arrays one against another. Upon hemp, and paid for it accordingly. It was manufactured the principles of the gentleman, we ought to sacrifice and sent to the Mediterranean, and after an actual expe- all the other interests of the country to promote our nariment of considerable length, no doubt is now enter-vigation. This is asking too much. tained by the Commissioners of the Navy, but that it will prove to be fully equal, in all respects, to the best Russia hemp. Indeed, in one respect, the report which we have received from the Navy Department, awards to American hemp a decided preference. It declares that "the Russian hemp is certainly liable to greater injury from transportation, and that it does sustain more or less injury in its transportation from Russia to our ports, is believed to be an unquestionable fact." It often becomes musty in the hold of the vessel, in consequence of the great length of the voyage.

The gentleman from Maine seems to apprehend great danger to the navy, from the passage of this bill. He appears to think it will fall with so much oppression upon our navigation and fisheries, that these nurseries of seamen for the navy may be greatly injured, if not altogether destroyed.

In regard to the value and importance of a navy to this country, I cordially agree with the gentleman from Maine. Every prejudice of my youth was enlisted in its favor, and the judgment of riper years has strengthened and confirmed those early impressions. It is the surest bond But, says the gentleman, why is there no American of our Union. The Western States have a right to dewater-rotted hemp in the market? The answer is, that mand from this Government, that the mouth of the Misthe prejudices which have heretofore existed against it,sissippi shall be kept open, both in war and in peace. If in the public mind, have not yet been dispelled. Our you should not afford them a free passage to the ocean, farmers have not hitherto been able to dispose of it at you cannot expect to retain them in the Union; they are, the same price which Russia hemp has borne in the mar-therefore, as much, if not more, interested in cherishing ket. Besides, they require some encouragement to induce them to abandon their ancient method of dew-rotting, and to take to water-rotting. For this reason, the additional duty of 25 dollars per ton upon this article has very properly been made progressive, rising slowly, to give our farmers time to perfect themselves in the business, and to grow the article in sufficient quantities for the supply of our public and private ships.

I shall say nothing of the capacity of this country to produce hemp. There is a single State of this Union a State whose soil is naturally more fertile, in my opinion, than that of any other, of which I am reminded by the gentleman now in my eye, [Mr. CLARK, of Kentucky,] capable of producing hemp in abundance to supply the demands of the world.

I need not trouble the committee with any remarks in regard to flax ; as they would only be a repetition of what I have already said, concerning the cultivation and production of hemp.

the navy, than any other portion of the Republic. The feeling in its favor contains in it nothing sectional; it is general. We are all interested in its preservation and extension. Unlike standing armies, a navy never did, nor never will, destroy the liberties of any country. It is our most efficient and least dangerous arm of defence.

To what, then, does the argument of the gentleman lead? Although iron, and hemp, and flax, and their manufactures, are essential to the very existence of a navy; yet he would make us dependant for them, upon the will of the Emperor of Russia, or the King of Sweden. A statesman would as soon think of being dependant on a foreign nation for gunpowder, or cannon, or cannon balls, or muskets, as he would for the supply of iron, or flax, or hemp, for our navy. Even if these articles could not be produced as cheaply in this as in other countries, upon great national principles, their domestic production ought to be encouraged, even if it did tax the community. They are absolutely necessary for our defence. Without then, what would become of you, if engaged in war with a great naval power? You would then be as helpless, as if you were deprived of gunpowder or of cannon. With out them, your navy would be perfectly useless. Shall we, then, in a country, calculated by nature, above all others, for their production, refuse to lend them a helping hand? I trust not.

The gentleman from Maine has used a most astonishing argument, against any further protection to hemp and flax, and iron. We ought not further to encourage our farmers to grow flax and hemp, nor our manufacturers to produce iron. And why? Because you will thus deprive the navigating interest of the freight which they earn, by carrying these articles from Russia to this country. Can the gentleman be serious in contending that, for the sake The gentleman from Maine has said much about our of affording freight to the ship owners, we ought to de- fisheries, and the injurious effects which the present bill pend upon a foreign country for a supply of these arti. will have upon them. From his argument, I was induced cles? This argument strikes at the root of the whole again to read the bill, supposing that it might possibly American System. Upon this same principle, we ought contain some latent provision, hostile to the fisheries, not to manufacture any article whatever at home; be- which I had not been able to detect. Indeed, one might cause this will deprive our ships of the carriage of it from have supposed, judging merely from the remarks of the abroad. This principle, had it been adopted in practice, gentleman, without a reference to the bill, that it aimed would have left us where we were at the close of the a deadly blow against this valuable branch of our national American Revolution. We should still have been depen-industry. I could find nothing in it, which even touched dent upon foreign nations for articles of the first necessity. the fisheries. They have ever been special favorites of This argument amounts to a proclamation of war, by our our legislation. I shall not pretend to enumerate, benavigation, against the agriculture and manufactures of cause the task might seem invidious, the different acts of the country. You must not produce, because we will Congress affording them protection. They are numerthen lose the carriage, is the sum and substance of ous. The gentleman has, in my opinion, been very unthe argument. Am I then to be seriously told, that for fortunate in his complaints that they have not been suffi.

ciently protected. From the origin of this Government, they have been cherished, in every possible manner, by our legislation. For their benefit we have adopted a system of prohibitions, of drawbacks, and of bounties, unknown to our laws, in relation to any other subject. They have grown into national importance, and have become a great interest of the country. They should con. tinue to be cherished, because they are the best nurseries of our seamen. I would not withdraw from them an atom of the protection which they have received; on the contrary, I should cheerfully vote them new bounties, if new ❘ bounties were necessary to sustain them. They are the very last interest in the country which ought to complain. The gentleman, whilst he strenuously opposed any additional protection to domestic iron, and domestic hemp, Burely could not have remembered, that the productions of the fisheries enjoy a monopoly of the home market. The duties in their favor are so high as to exclude foreign competition. We do not ask such prohibitory duties upon foreign iron, flax, or hemp. We demand but a moderate increase; and yet the fisheries, which are protected by prohibitory duties, meet us, and deny to us, this reasonable request.

[APRIL 2, 1828.

attention to their own navigation, we were necessarily deprived of a large portion of their carrying trade. Since the year 1818, the time when the world had settled down in a state of peace, our navigation has been gradually increasing. Since then," it has grown with the growth, and strengthened with the strength," of our country. It now depends upon our own resources for its support. Like the pine of our mountains, supported by its native soil, it defies the wintry blast. It is no longer a mushroom plant, of hot-house growth, which the first frost will wither. It has been increasing, from year to year, since 1818, with a steady and natural growth, and is now in a most thriving and prosperous condition.

I will now descend to the humble though important articles of foreign spirits and molasses; and, after having made some observations relating to them, I shall not further trespass upon the attention of the committee. The tariff of 1824 abandoned, in a great degree, the peculiar interest of the grain growing States. It is true, that a distinguished gentleman from Kentucky, then a Representative upon this floor, Mr. CLAY,] did move, in committee of the whole, to increase the duty on molasses, as this bill proposes, from five to ten cents per gallon. His argument upon that occasion was one of the happiest efforts he ever made upon this floor. I voted with him in committee of the whole; but, when the bill came into the House, I gave a contrary vote. I was one of those mariners who were then willing to throw the molasses overboard, to prevent the ship from sinking. I found that our Eastern brethren were so hostile to any increased duty upon this article, that the fate of the bill depended upon the rejection of Mr. Clay's amendment. I thought it would be too selfish in me to persist in retaining a single article, although its retention might be peculiarly beneficial to my own constituents, when I believed the effect would be to destroy a bill which contained many wise and useful provisions, calculated to promote the general welfare. I did what I believed to be right, under all the circumstances, and I have never since repented of my conduct.

The bill contains another provision which has been assailed by the gentleman from Maine. It proposes to repeal the law, now in existence, which gives to the distiller of New England rum a bounty or draw back of four cents per gallon upon its exportation to a foreign country, This provision affords to New England rum a decided preference over our spirits distilled from grain, in foreign markets. It is a discrimination which certainly ought to be abolished. Did the gentleman reflect, whilst he was opposing this repeal, that, for the benefit of our fisheries, we do not allow any drawback of the duties upon foreign fish and foreign fish oil, imported into this country? The law, in effect, declares that if our merchants send these articles to foreign countries, they must be the production of our own fisheries. This is a remarkable case: because almost every other article, brought from a foreign country, may be exported in the same form in which it arrived, with the benefit of drawback. And yet the gen. The case is now altered. New England, who was tleman insists-although the article is changed from mo- scarcely willing to accept the tariff of 1824, is now seeklasses into rum-that the distiller ought still to receive ing protection for her woollen manufacturing interest, four cents per gallon from the treasury, as a premium the value of which has been estimated at 40,000,000 dolupon sending it abroad, to enter into competition with a lars. The vote upon the question now before the comdomestic liquor, which is distilled from the grain of the mittee must determine whether she is willing to grasp farmer. Is this just? Is it equal? The truth is, if our this protection with one hand, and with the other spurn navigating interest shall continue to oppose every mea- the farmers of the Middle and Western States who are gure which may be proposed in this House calculated to asking for a similar boon. Would such conduct be fair? promote the agriculture of the country, there is great By the tariff of 1824, we added 8 per cent. to the ad vadanger the people may at last begin to believe, that a lorem duty which had formerly existed on woollen goods. hostility exists, in the nature of things, between these two Experience has shown that this increased duty, ameunt. interests. Should false alarms of this character ever being in the whole to 33 per cent. ad valorem, has not excited, they will seriously injure our navigation and our been sufficient. I am willing and anxious to extend furnavy. I would caution gentlemen, as they value these ther protection to this suffering interest, although there interests, to avoid placing them in unnatural array against is not an individual in five hundred of my constituents, the great agricultural interest of the country, upon in that portion of the congressional district with which i which all others must at last depend. am best acquainted, who will personally, at the present time, derive the least benefit from an additional tax on woollens. I say personally, because I freely admit that the establishment of the woollen manufacture in this country is a great national object. The farmers in the eastern part of Pennsylvania never can, and never will, convert their small farms, for which they have paid large prices, into sheep walks. The great woollen factories are now far distant from them. As to the grain of the middle States which they consume, it is too trifling to be seriously brought into the account. Comparatively speak. ing, it is unworthy of the least consideration. Yet I am, as one of the representatives of that people, willing to act with liberality, and afford these manufactories sufficient aid; but I shall expect the same liberality in return. What claims has the manufacturer upon us, which the farmer has not? The agricultural interest is now greatly

The gentleman has selected the year 1810, and has said, truly, that our foreign tonnage is not so great now as it was then; and that our tonnage employed in the coasting trade has not increased since that time, in proportion to the increase of our population. I ask, is this statement calculated to produce a fair impression? We all know that for many years previous to that period, the nations of Europe had been engaged in a desolating war; one of the chief purposes of which appeared to be the déstruction of the commerce of each other. We re mained neutral, and became the carriers for the world. This circumstance imparted to our navigation a mushroom growth, and made it, in a great degree, dependent upon the continuance of foreign war. This growth had reached its utmost limit in the year 1810. After peace was restored, and the belligerant nations had turned their

APRIL 2, 1828.]

Tariff Bill

[H. of R.

depressed. This fact is notorious. It is personally known reign nations to an amount equal to more than three mil. to almost every gentleman upon this floor. The supply of lions three hundred thousand bushels of grain, whilst that grain is every where too great for the demand. There article is perishing at home for the want of a market? is a vast surplus of labor employed in the cultivation of This simple statement of the fact must carry conviction to the soil. Are not the farmers the very bone and sinew every unprejudiced mind. The farmer has a right to inof your country? Are they not the men who, by their sist that the spirits manufactured from the corn and the virtues, must preserve your republican institutions un-rye which he produces shall be preferred by your legiscorrupted in peace, and who, by their valor, must defend lation to that which is distilled from foreign materials. them in war? They are also the tax payers, by whom Mr. King suggested that it might become proper to proyour government is supported. And is this the only inhibit the importation of foreign spirits and molasses altoterest in the country which is to be disregarded? Are gether. What have the committee done? They have commerce and manufactures to be protected, and is agri- recommended an addition to the present duties of only culture to be abandoned? Can gentlemen expect aid to ten cents per gallon on foreign spirits, and five cents on their woolien manufactories, from the representatives of molasses; and this trifling increase has occasioned the farmers upon this floor, and at the same time refuse to storm which has been raised by the gentleman from aid those farmers? Will they take, but never give? I Maine, [Mr. SPRAGUE.] trust they will not act so ungenerous a part.

Let us view this subject in another of its aspects. Some What is the true state of the case, in regard to molass- gentlemen say, we are willing to give you an additional es and foreign spirits? The importation of molasses dur-duty upon foreign spirits; but you must not touch the ing the last year amounted to 13,362,268 gallons. A molasses. This would be a mere delusion. You may gentleman from Vermont [Mr. HUNT] has informed the impose two dollars a gallon upon the importation of committee that, from the year 1822 to 1826, both inclu-foreign spirits, if you suffer it to come to our country in sive, the average annual quantity of molasses imported, was 12,806,948 gallons; and no doubt he is correct. The Committee of Manufactures have stated, in their report, that, for the last six years, the importation of foreign spirits has been between five and six millions of gallons annually. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. AxDERSON] has corrected the committee in relation to the two last years, and has shown that in the year 1826 the number of gallons of foreign spirits consumed in the country amounted to 3,208,321; and in 1827, 3,183,186. And here, sir, permit me to observe, that I regret I was not present when that gentleman delivered his able and masterly argument to the committee, which I have since read with great pleasure; an argument which, for its spirit of conciliation, was in perfect contrast with that of his colleague, [Mr. SPRAGUE.]

the shape of molasses, at five cents per gallon; I ask what protection will be afforded to the grain growers? None. Its sole effect would be to transfer the distilleries of molasses from the West Indies to New England. Leave the duty upon molasses to remain as it is, and the increase of duty upon foreign spirits which the bill proposes, will afford the same protection to the domestic distillation of molasses, that it will afford to the domestic distillation of grain This conclusion is irresistible. I ask, what kind of protection it would be to the farmer, to impose a heavy duty upon flour, and suffer wheat to be imported free? It would be a bounty to the miller, but no protection to the grain grower. Or what protection would it afford to the wool grower, to tax foreign woollens heavily, whilst you suffered the raw material to be imported at a trifling rate of duty? Such a policy would encourage the manufacturer, but ruin the wool grower. Upon the same principle, I ask, what protection it would afford to our

It may be that the estimate made by the Committee of Manufactures of the quantity of molasses distilled within the United States is too large. It is at best only conjec-grain growers, if you were even to exclude foreign rum, tural, but they have given good reasons for the opinion whilst you admit its importation in the form of molasses, that about 8,000,000 of gallons of molasses are distilled at five cents per gallon? Such legislation would benefit in New England. The gentleman from Maine [Mr. Ax- the domestic distillers of molasses; but there the advan DERSON] has given it as his opinion that not more than tage would end. The duty upon foreign spirits and foone-sixth of the molasses imported is distilled; whilst the reign molasses must stand or fall together. It will be a Committee of Manufactures believe it to be about two- vain attempt to endeavor to persuade the Pennsylvania thirds. For the purpose of my argument, I shall state farmer, that he will be protected against foreign rum by the distillation to be 6,000,000 of gallons, which is con- a high duty, whilst the raw material out of which this siderably less than one half of the molasses imported rum is manufactured, shall continue to be imported at during the last year, and is an intermediate point be- the present rate of duty. The gentleman has contendtween the committee and the gentleman from Maine, ed, that the additional duty of five cents per gallon upon [Mr. ANDERSON.] According to this estimate, there was molasses will operate with severity upon the poor, who imported into the United States, during the last year, in use this article with their food. Can this positior. be susthe form of molasses, six millions of gallons of foreign tained? If all protection to agriculture were out of the spirits; and in foreign spirits which had been distilled question, and if we were now debating a mere measure of abroad, 3,183,186 gallons; making an aggregate of revenue, the duty ought to be increased to ten cents. It 9,183,186 gallons. Allowing that one bushel of grain would require a much greater increase of duty, than the can be converted into 24 gallons of spirits, which I be- bill proposes, to place the poor man of New England, lieve to be about the average product from distillation, where this article is chiefly consumed, upon the same we find that there is annually imported into the United footing with the poor man in other portions of the Union. States, of the product of foreign agriculture, either in One gallon of molasses contains sweetening matter equal the form of spirits or of molasses, for the purpose of dis to eight pounds of brown sugar. Under the existing tillation, what would be equal to more than three million laws, the poor man of Pennsylvania, who purchases eight three hundred thousand bushels of grain. Without in pounds of such sugar, pays a duty upon it of twenty-four creasing the consumption of spirits a single gallon, if you cents, whilst the individual who buys a gallon of molasses, could prohibit the importation of foreign spirits, and pre-pays only a duty of five cents. At present, the poor vent the distillation of molasses in this country, you would man in one portion of our country, thus pays nearly five thus create this immense domestic market for the benefit times as much duty, upon an article of the same nature, of our farmers. Let me call the attention of gentlemen as the poor man in another. I ask the gentleman to anwho represent agricultural districts to this fact. I ask, swer this argument. After the duty on molasses shall can it be the policy of an agricultural people to consume, have been increased to ten cents, there will still be a in the form of spirits, the agricultural productions of fo great disproportion between the tax upon it and upon

H. OF R.]

Tariff Bill.

[APRIL 2, 1828.

brown sugar. Those who use molasses in the eastern States, will not, even then, pay half as much tax to the Government, as the consumers of brown sugar in the other portions of the Union. It has been estimated by a gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. HUNT,] that each indivi-ed upon brown sugar was one cent per pound, that imdual in that State, consumes, upon an average, about two gallons of molasses in the course of a year. Admitting this estimate to be correct, by the law now in existence, he pays a duty of ten cents; and will, if this bill should pass, pay only twenty cents; whilst another individual in Pennsylvania, who has not acquired the taste for molasses, will still be compelled to pay forty-eight cents, upon six-ture of " Many," entitled "The Real State of the Case," teen pounds of brown sugar.

of character which so eminently distinguishes them, and which no man more admires than I do myself-succeeded in defeating a majority of the House of Representatives, with Mr. Madison at their head. Whilst the duty imposposed upon a gallon of molasses, which is equal to eight pounds of sugar, was only two and a half cents. In the history of our legislation, this original disparity has be come much greater. Whilst brown sugar now pays three cents per pound, molasses is charged with only five cents per gallon. And yet a printed paper, under the signahas been circulated from this House over the Union, accusing the Committee on Manufactures of introducing the moderate additional duty of five cents per gallon upon molasses, into the bill, for the purpose of destroying it. In this manner they have been presented before the public as objects for the hand of scorn to point at--as betrayers of that interest which it was their duty to protect. The gentleman from Maine seems to be ignorant of the nature of distilling grain; at least so far as it is practised in the district which I have the honor in part to represent. He spoke of the farmer going to the distiller with 50 bushels of corn, and giving one half of the spirits which it produced, and which he estimated at fifty gallons, for distilling the other half. In my district they have attained to great perfection in the art of distillation. I have at this moment in my pocket a letter from a respectable distiller of the county of Chester, which informs me that he makes three gallons of whiskey from a single bushel of grain—the one half corn and the other half rye. I be lieve this to be no uncommon production. The distiller receives little more for his labor than food for his hogs. It is by feeding stock, and not by distillation, that he makes his profit. For every cent which you increase the price of a gallon of whiskey, the distiller is able to give the farmer an increased price of nearly three cents for his bushel of grain. Raise the price of whiskey but five cents the gallon, and you increase the price of corn and rye from twelve to fifteen cents the bushel. This, therefore, is a vast interest. It is not on account of the distil

I have the highest names in the country to sustain me in this part of the argument. I have already referred to the former Speaker of this House. Let me now introduce the name of Mr. Madison for the same purpose. He proposed a duty of eight cents a gallon on molasses, in the first Congress, when only five per cent. ad valorem was imposed upon most of the articles imported from abroad. It will be observed by the committee that this duty was proposed at the same time that it was agreed to tax brown sugar only one cent per pound. Mr. Madison, in support of his motion, said, "he had heard an obser. vation made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. FITZSIMMONS, which he thought lessened the force of the objection taken against taxing molasses as a necessary of life, those who used it in substance escaped the tax on sugar, at least so much of it as the one was a substitute for the other; he feared that there was no other way of coming at the duty on country rum, but laying one on | the material from which it was extracted; and he did not think eight cents out of the way." Mr. Fitzsimmons, then a representative from Pennsylvania, and an able and practical representative he was, so far as I can judge from the debates of that day, in sustaining the proposition of Mr. Madison, observed, "as to what is used in its raw, unmanufactured state, it will be sufficient to observe, that, as it is generally a substitute for sugar, the consumers will therefore avoid the tax on that article, and pay it on the other. In Pennsylvania they mostly use sugar; now, if the people there pay a tax upon that article, it is butlers that we are anxious; although their interests ought distributive justice that the people of Massachusetts pay one on the article they use for the same purpose." And again, he contended, "if a less, or much less, duty be laid, the operation of the tax upon sugar and molass. s would be unequal on the consumer, which certainly cannot be the wish of any member, if I may judge from the conciliating disposition which is prevalent in the committee." Finally the Committee of the Whole determined to impose a duty of six cents per gallon upon molasses.

When it was afterwards proposed to fix the duty on brown sugar at two cents per pound, Mr.Fitzsimmons remarked, that one gallon of molasses weighed eight pounds; that at six cents it did not pay a cent per pound; could it therefore be called any wise equal to such a tax on sugar? Moreover, sugar is an article of as general consumption as molasses; and when it is of this inferior quality, it enters as much, or more, into the consumption of the poor, as the other, while at the same time molasses will sweeten more according to its weight, than even the best sugar will; from which considerations I think gentlemen will be satisfied, by putting it on an equality with molasses; therefore, I do not oppose one cent per pound." The committee accordingly fixed the duty at one cent.

not to be disregarded. We wish to afford the farmer a home market for his grain. I do not wish to see the consumption of spirits increased a single gallon. Heaven forbid that I should! What I alone desire, and what alone I wish to obtain, is, that spirits distilled from native grain should be substituted, instead of spirits distilled from foreign materials. If this article must be used, let it be that of domestic origin.

The gentleman has depicted, in glowing colors, other disastrous consequences which would inevitably follow, from the proposed increase of duty on molasses. This five cents per gallon will destroy our lumber trade, and our fish trade, with the West Indies. He says they both depend upon molasses, because that is the article which we receive in exchange for our fish and our lumber, and that should the present bill pass we shall no longer be able to trade our lumber and our fish with the people of the West Indies, for their molasses. The fertile imagina. tion of the gentleman has given birth to other alarming consequences, which would follow from this extravagant duty. It will not only destroy the lumber trade and the fisheries, but their destruction will destroy the navy. Even my friend from Maine [Mr. ANDERSON,] drew the same hideous picture.

A duty of six cents upon each gallon of molasses, even at that day of low duties, passed the Committee of the It is very fortunate that the British did not know what Whole of the House of Representatives, although it was was our true condition during the last war. If the five opposed, upon the floor, by all the intellectual strength cents per gallon will be productive of such fearful conseof New England, then in that body. This duty was after-quences, the British government, by withholding molasses wards reduced (I believe in the Senate,) to two and a half cents per gallon; and in that form the law passed. Thus the Eastern people-by means of that perseverance

from us altogether, might have prostrasted our navy. Before the gentleman made this discovery to the House, he should have moved to close the doors. We are sur