ON MEASURES OF PUBLIC POLICY.

IN SENATE, MARCH 1, 1842.

[As Mr. Clay was about to retire to private life, while important measures of public policy, under the new administration, were pending, and as, from his position and long experience as an American statesman, he was entitled to be heard on questions yet unsettled, he brought forward a series of resolutions, eleven in number, declaratory of the principles which he thought should guide the legislation of Congress-the most important of which were those relating to the tariff. The Compromise Tariff of 1833 was now approaching the term of its last change to the lowest rate of duty, twenty per cent., and the annual revenue in this last stage of the depression of duties had fallen to about twelve millions, which was obviously insufficient for the purposes of government. Mr. Clay thought that a revenue of twenty-six millions would be required-twenty-two millions for expenses of government, two to liquidate the national debt, and two for a reserved fund, or contingencies-and that the tariff should be altered with that view, still maintaining the principle of protection, which was saved in the tariff of 1833, although some have maintained that it was sacrificed then. But it was not. It was a compromise indeed; but, properly administered with a home valuation, the tariff of 1833 was protective on articles where it was most needed, even to the last stages of the depression of duties. More than half of the imports, however, were exempt from duty, and of course admitted on the free-trade platform; but a careful discrimination was applied for the protection of home industry. Such was the plan of Mr. Clay, as briefly explained in his short speech of the 18th of February. While the revenue had gone down to twelve millions, the expenses of government under Mr. Van Buren had gone up to near forty millions and the nation, of course, was rapidly running in debt, by the issue of treasury notes on a peace establishment!

Mr.

*The expenditures of 1838 were $39,455,438; and the sum of the four years' expenditure, under Mr. Van Buren, was $142,561,945.

Clay thought these expenditures might be reduced nearly one half, and he proposed to regulate the tariff so as to produce about twenty-six millions.

This speech is a book of instruction on the subjects of which it treats, to statesmen and people alike; and it is a book of history to the same extent. In an argument of this kind, Mr. Clay embodies more history than almost any other man; and the candor of his statements wins confidence. No man ever doubted Mr. Clay's truthfulness-hardly his fairness-and his investigations of facts were patient and thorough. No person can be thoroughly versed in American political history without reading Mr. Clay's speeches.]

MR. PRESIDENT:

The resolutions which have just been read, and which are to form the subject of the present discussion, are of the greatest importance, involving interests of the highest character, and a system of policy which, in my opinion, lies at the bottom of any restoration of the prosperity of the country. In discussing them, I would address myself to you in the language of plainness, of soberness, and truth. I did not come here as if I were entering a garden full of flowers, and of the richest shrubbery, to cull the tea-roses, the japonicas, the jasmins, and woodbines, and weave them into a garland of the gayest colors, that, by the beauty of their assortment, and by their fragrance, I may gratify fair ladies. Nor is it my wish-it is far, far from my wish to revive any subjects of a party character, or which might be calculated to renew the animosities which unhappily have hitherto prevailed between the two great political parties in the country. My course is far different from this; it is to speak to you of the sad condition of our country; to point out not the remote and original, but. the proximate, the immediate causes which have produced, and are likely to continue, our distresses, and to suggest a remedy. If any one, in or out of the Senate, has imagined it to be my intention, on this occasion, to indulge in any ambitious display of language, to attempt any rhetorical flights, or to deal in any other figures than figures of arithmetic, he will find himself greatly disappointed. The farmer, if he is a judicious man, does not begin to plow till he has first laid off his land, and marked it off at proper distances, by planting stakes, by which his plowmen are to be guided in their movements; and the plowman, accordingly, fixes his eye upon the stake opposite to the end of the destined furrow, and then endeavors to reach it by a straight and direct furrow. These resolutions are my stakes.

But, before I proceed to examine them, let me first meet and obviate certain objections, which, as I understand, have been or may be urged against them generally. I learn that it is said of these resolutions, that

they present only general propositions, and that, instead of this, I should at once have introduced separate bills, and entered into detail, and shown in what manner I propose to accomplish the objects which the resolutions propose. Let me here say, in reply, that the ancient principle and mode of legislation which has ever prevailed from the foundation of this govern-. ment, has been to fix first upon the general principles which are to guide us, and then to carry out those principles by detailed legislation. Such has ever been the course pursued, not only in the country from which we derive our legislative institutions, but in our own. The memorable resolution offered in the British House of Commons, by the celebrated Mr. Dunning, is no doubt familiar to the mind of every one-that "the power of the crown (and it is equally true of our own chief magistrate) had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished." When I was a member of another legislative body, which meets in the opposite extremity of this capitol, it was the course, in reference to the great questions of internal improvement, and other leading measures of public policy, to propose specific resolutions, going to mark out the principles of action which ought to be adopted, and then to carry out those principles by subsequent enactments. Another objection is urged, as I understand, against one of these resolutions, which is this: that, by the Constitution, no bill for raising revenue can originate anywhere but in the House of Representatives. It is true, that we can not originate such a bill; but, undoubtedly, in contemplating the condition of the public affairs, and in the right consideration of all questions touching the amount of the revenue, and the mode in which it shall be raised, and involving the great questions of expenditure and retrenchment, and how far the expenses of the government may safely and properly be diminished, it is perfectly legitimate for us to deliberate and to act as duty may demand. There can be no question but that, during the present session of Congress, a bill of revenue will be sent to us from the other House; and if, when it comes, we shall first have gone through with a consideration of the general subject, fixing the principles of policy proper to be pursued in relation to it, it will greatly economize the time of the Senate, and proportionably save a large amount of the public money.

Perhaps no better mode can be pursued of discussing the resolutions I have had the honor to present, than to take them up in the order of their arrangement, as I presented them to the Senate, after much deliberate consideration.

The first resolution declares,

"That it is the duty of the general government, for conducting its administration, to provide an adequate revenue within the year, to meet the current expenses of the year; and that any expedient, either by loan or treasury notes, to supply, in time of peace, a deficiency of revenue, especially during successive years, is unwise, and must lead to pernicious consequences."

I have heard it asserted, that this resolution is but a truism. If so, I

regret to say, that it is one from which governments too often depart, and from which this government especially has departed during the last five years. Has an adequate revenue been provided within each of those years, to meet the necessary expenses of those same years? No; far otherwise.

In 1837, at the called session, instead of imposing the requisite amount of taxes on the free articles, according to the provisions of the compromise act, what was the resort of the administration? To treasury notes. And the same expedient of treasury notes was ever since adopted, from year to year, to supply the deficit accruing. And, of necessity, this policy cast upon the administration succeeding, an unascertained, unliquidated debt, inducing a temporary necessity on that administration, to have resort to the same means of supply.

I do not advert to these facts with any purpose of crimination or recrimination. Far from it. For we have reached that state of the public affairs when the country lies bleeding at every pore, and when, as I earnestly hope and trust, we shall, by common consent, dispense with our party prejudices, and agree to look at any measure proposed for the public relief as patriots and statesmen. I say, then, that during the four years of the administration of Mr. Van Buren, there was an excess of expenditure over the income of the government, to the amount of between seven and eight millions of dollars; and I say that it was the duty of that administration, the moment they found this deficit to exist in the revenue, to have resorted to the adequate remedy by laying the requisite amount of taxes on the free articles to meet and to supply the deficiency.

I shall say nothing more on the first resolution, because I do hope that, whatever the previous practice of this government may have been, there is no senator here who will hesitate to concur in the truth of the general propositions it contains.

The next three resolutions all relate to the same general subjects-subjects which I consider much the most important of any here set forth; and I shall, for that reason, consider them together.

The second resolution asserts,

"That such an adequate revenue can not be obtained by duties on foreign imports, without adopting a higher rate than twenty per centum, as provided for in the compromise act, which, at the time of its passage, was supposed and assumed as a rate that would supply a sufficient revenue for an economical administration of the government."

The third resolution concludes,

"That the rate of duties on foreign imports ought to be augmented beyond the rate of twenty per centum, so as to produce a net revenue of twentysix millions of dollars--twenty-two for the ordinary expenses of government, two for the payment of the existing debt, and two millions as a reserved fund for contingencies."

The fourth resolution asserts,

"That, in the adjustment of a tariff to raise an amount of twenty-six millions of revenue, the principles of the compromise act generally should be adhered to; and that especially a maximum rate of ad valorem duties should be established, from which there ought to be as little departure as possible."

The first question which these resolutions suggest, is this: what should be the amount of the annual expenditures of this government? Now, on this point, I shall not attempt, what is impossible, to be exact and precise in stating what that may be. We can only make an approximation. No man, in his private affairs can say, or pretends to say, at the beginning of the year, precisely what shall be the amount of his expenses during the year; that must depend on many unforeseen contingencies, which can not, with any precision, be calculated beforehand; all that can be done is to make an approximation to what ought or what may be the amount. Before I consider that question, allow me to correct, here, an assertion made first by the senator from South Carolina (Mr. Calhoun), and subsequently by the senator from Missouri, near me (Mr. Linn), and I believe by one or two other gentlemen, namely, that the whig party, when out of power, asserted that, if trusted with the helm, they would administer this government at an amount of expenditure not exceeding thirteen millions of dollars. I hope, if such an assertion was actually made by either or all these gentlemen, that it will never be repeated again, without resorting to proof to sustain it. I know of no such position ever taken by the whig party, or by any prominent member of the whig party. Sure I am that the party generally pledged itself to no such reduction of the public expenses-none.

And I again say that I trust, before such an assertion is repeated, the proofs will be adduced. For in this case, as in others, that which is asserted and reiterated, comes at last to be believed. The whig party did promise economy and retrenchment, and I trust will perform their promise. I deny (in no offensive sense) that the whig party ever promised to reduce the expenditures of this government to thirteen millions of dollars. No; but this was what they said: during the four years of the administration of Mr. Adams, the average amount of the public expenditure was but thirteen millions, and you charged that administration with outrageous extravagance, and came yourselves into power on promises to reduce the annual expenditure; but, having obtained power, instead of reducing the public expenses, you carried them up to the astonishing amount of near forty millions. But, while the whigs never asserted that they would administer the government with thirteen millions, our opponents, our respected opponents, after having been three years in power, instead of bringing the expenses below the standard of Mr. Adams's administration, declared that fifteen millions was the amount at which the expenditures should be fixed.