PRINTED AND PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY JONATHAN ROW, SOMERSET, SOMERSET COUNTY, PA. New Series. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1345, Vol. 4.-No. 6. From the New York Recorder. CHARITY. In the hour of keenest sorrow , In the hour of deepest wo, Wait not for the coming morrow, ' To the sad and suffering-go ; Make it thy sincerest pleasure To administer relief Freely opening thy treasure To assuage a brother's grief. Go, and seek the orphan sighing Seek the widow, in her tears ; As orj mercy's pinions flying, Go, dispel their darkest fears ; Seek the stranger, sad and weary, Pass not on the other side, Though the task he sad and dreary, Heeding not the scorn of pride. . Go, with manners unassuming, In a meek and quiet way, O'er the father, ne'er presuming, Though thy brother sadly stray ; 'Tis a Saviour's kind compassion ( 'Tis his righteousness alone, All unmerited salvation That around thy path hath shone. When thy heart rs warmly glowing, With the sacred love of prayer, Be iliy works of kindness flowing Not as with a miser's care ; Ditty e'er should be thy watchword Pity drop the balmy tear, Always towards the fallen cherish Sympathy and love sincere. REMARKS of the In the House of Representa tives, December !, 1S45. Mr. Douglass, offered amongst others, the following resolution, in reference to the President's Message: " That so much of said message as re " iates to the condition of the Treasury; " to the reduction and modification or the 44 tariff with reference to revenue; to the " extension of our revenue laws over the ' Territory of Texas; to the payment of the public debt; and the establishment of a constitutional Treasury, and the u separation of the affairs of Government ." from all banking institutions, be referred t to the Committee of Ways and Means." The resolution having been read, - Mr. Stewart moved to amend the re solution by inserting thereafter instruc tions to the committee to report "as the sense of this House that no alteration ought to be made in the tariff of 1812." In supporting this motion, Mr. S. said tHat he thought the House ought to meet this question at once. It seemed to him to be the duty of this committee to give an expression of its views on the general subject. The people had heard with a larm the language of the Executive Mes sage on the subject of the tariff. Mr. S. was in possession of letters just received from individuals who had commenced ma nufacturing establishments, and who wish ed to know whether it would be safe for them ty proceed. Their inquiry of him was, what was going to be done. Whe ther the entire system of protective poliey ivas to be overturned, as had been recom mended by the Executive ? . That inqui ry was coming up from all parts of the coun try, and he thought it the duty: of that House to reply to these inquiries, and to let the people know at once whether the policy of protecting American industry was to be subverted or established. Sure ly it was their obvious duty to come up 10 the question fairly and openly, and at once to give a distinct expression of their views. ' It had been intimated by a gentleman from Alabama, over the way, (Air Payne) that the report from the Secretary of the Treasury was a most extraordinary docu ment. "Extraordinary it certainly was, smd many new and very cxtraordinary iloctrines did it contain. Mr. S. concur red very heartily with the gentleman in thus much of what he had said. The re port was a document setting forth doc trines in political economy such as never before liad been promulgated by any au thorized officer of Government, and the positions there assumed were such as had startled the country. It was therefore ma nifestly proper and highly obligatory on this body that it should give as prompt an expression as possible of its views and intention in the premises. Mr. S. pro posed to draw forth to view, and to pub lic examination in as brief a manner as he could, some, of these opinions. ; The first doctrine which he should no tice; and which was most distinctly avow ed in the Secretary's report, was 'that the protective policy was cNconstitctional, and if so, there must be an end to it. The Secretary said expressly that the ta riff of 1842 "was "too unequal and un just, too exorbitant and oppressive, and too clean yi n conflict with the fundamen tal principles of the Constitution." These were the express words, that the tariff of 112 was clearly in conflict with the fundamental principles of the Consti tution; and he had made an argument to prove this. He quoted the Constitution, and then argued, by way of inference, that the power to lay a duty for protec tion was not in this government. His report says : "A partial and a total prohibition are alike in violation of the trce ob ject of the taxing power. They only differ in degree and not in principle. If the revenue limit mav be exceeded one per cent, it may be exceeded one hun dred. If it may be exceeded on any one article, it may be exceeded on all; and there is no escape from this conclusion but in contending that Congress may lay duties on all articles so high as to collect no revenue, and operate as a total prohi bition. "The Constitution doclares that 'all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. ' A tariff bill, it is conceded, can only originate in the House, because it is a bill for raising revenue. This is the only proper object of such a bill. A tariff is a bill to 'lay and collect taxes. V. It is a bill for raising revenue;' and whenever it departs from that object, in whole or in part, either by total or partial prohibition, it v io late s the pcrposeofthe granted pow er." ' . Thus he held explicitly that a duty which went but one per cent, beyond the revenue standard was unconstitutional, and that if Congress might add but one percent, to the amount of duty necessary for revenue, it might add a hundred per cent.; and that if it might impose such duty on one article, it might with equal right impose it upon all . other articles whatever. The whole proceeding, whe ther in a smaller or a greater degree, the Secretary maintained to be directly a gainst the Constitution, and an act which transcended the power of Congress to perform. That was the doctrine of the report. Was it a doctrine which this House meant to sustain ? Would the House express its concurrence in such sentiments ! He trusted not. The doc trine was extraordinary, indeed. What, the protective policy unconstitutional ! Then all those statesmen who had gone before us had been open violators of the Constitution of their country. IId not this very policy of a protective tariff been recommended to Congress by every suc cessive Executive, from George Wash ington down to and including Andrew Jackson ? If gentlemen would refer to the first and to the last communications of President Washington, they could per ceive that he had distinctly recommended the adoption of such a policy as among the duties of Congress. Here are his words : "The advancement of agriculture, com merce, and manufactures, by all pro per means, will not, I trust, need recom mendation; but I cannot forbear intimating to you the expediency of giving effectual encouragement, as well as the introduc tion of new and useful inventions from a broad as to the exertions of skill and ge nius in producing them at home." Washington's Annual Address. "Congress has repeatedly, and not without success, directed their attention tO the ENCOURAGEMENT OF MANUFAC TURES. The object is of too much con sequence . not to ensure a continuance ol their efforts in every way which shall ap pear eligible." Washington's last Annual Address. He was President of the Convention which had formed the Constitution, and must be presumed to have known some thing alout its meaning and intention. So, if they would examine the Execu tive Messages of President Jefferson and Mr. S. presumed that gentleman, es pecially those of the Jefferson school, would admit that he, too, knew something of the Constitution they would find there three successive recommendations of this same policy as among the highest duties of Government. Here are the opinions of Jefferson. He went to the extent of absolute prohibition : "To cultivate peace, and maintain com merce and navigation, in all their lawful enterprizes; to foster our fisheries, as nur series of navigation and for the nurture of man; and to protect' the manufactures adapted to our circvmslam ts these, fellow-citizens, are the landmarks by which we are to guide ourselves in all our pro ceedings." Jefferson's second Annual Message. ' . "The situation into which we have been forced has impelled us to apply a portion of our industry and capital to national manufactures and improvements. The extent of convcrson is daily increasing, and little doubt remains that the establish ment formed and forming will, under the auspices of cheaper materials and subsis tence, the freedom of labor from taxation with us, and of protecting duties and prohibitions, become permanent." Jef ferson's eighth Annual Message. . ,"IIc, therefore, who is now against do mestic manufactuers, must be for reducing us either to a dependence upon that na tion, or be clothed in skins; and live like beasts in dens and caverns. J am proud to say thai 1 am not one of these. Ex- ! perience has taught me that tnamtfue j tures are now as necessary, to our in- dependence us to our comfort.''''- Jeffer ! son's Letter to Benj. Austin, Esq., Bos- I ton, 181C. Would gentlemen say that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson had united in recommending a violation of that sacred instrument which their own hands had formed? And how was it with President Madison that pure unsul lied patriot and most sagacious and incor ruptible statesman what did he think a bout the matter ? In no less than four ex ecutive communications, two of them an nual messages and two of them special, he had united his voice to recommend the encouragement and protection by legisla tion of our domestic manufactures : "The revision of our commercial laws, proper to adapt them to the arrangement which has taken place with Great Britain, will doubtless engage the early attention of Congress. It will be worthy at the same time of their just and provident care, to make such further alterations in the laws as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of man vfuclure which have been recently insti tuted or extended bv the laudable excr tions of our citizens." Madison's Spe cial Message, May 23, 1809. "I recommend also, as a more effectual safeguard, and as an encouragement to our growing manufactures, that the addition al duties on imports which are to expire at the end of one year after a peace M'ith Great Britain, be prolonged to the end of two years after that event." Madison's Special Message, May 31. 1814. "But there is no subject which con en ter with greater force and merit into the deliberations of Congress, than a conside ration of the means to preserve and pro mote the manufactures which have sprung into existence, and attained unparalleled maturity throughout the United States du ring the period of the European wars. This source of national independence and wealth I anxiously recommend to the prompt and constant guardianship of Con gress." Madison's Special Message, February 29, 1815. In Madison's seventh message he still more strongly recommends this policy. Mr. S. did not like to take up the time of the committee by reading from these documents to any extent: but gentlemen would hardly maintain that James Madi son did not understand the Constitution at least as well as Robert J. Walker. He might himself be called the father of the Constitution, and yet he publicly and of ficially recommended on four different oc casions that very policy which the present Secretary of the Treasury pronounced to be in open conflict with the Constitution. An Executive message was here re ceived from the President, through the hands of Mr. Walker, his private Secre tary Mr. S. next referred to the messages of. President Monroe, who had over and over again, in the strongest and most empha tic language, urged upon Congress the propriety of protecting domestic manufac tures. He then came to the messages of General Jackson a name which, he should suppose, would still have some small measure of authority; at least with those who once professed themselves pre eminently his friends. ' Mr. S. would place in distinct and open contradiction the opinions held by the present execu tive and his Secretary of the Treasury, as contained in the message of the one and the report of the other, and the opin ions of Andrew Jackson as contained in his Executive messages to Congress. He had already presented the doctrines of the existing Administration, as they were em bodied in the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, here inter posed, and desired to present to Mr. Stew art this question: Whether, when the du ties levied were sufficient for the purposes of revenue, Mr. S. was in favor of adding other duties for the purpose of protec tion X Mr. Stewart was understood to say in reply that lie would attend to that ques tion directly, but did not wish to be inter rupted. He would now proceed to read a paragraph from the message of Presi dent Jackson, by way of refreshing gen tlemen's recollection as to what had been the opinions on this subject avowed by that distinguished man. Mr. S. consid ered the passage he was about to quote as containing one of the clearest and strong est vindications of the constitutional pow er to lay duties, for the purpose of pro tection, that had ever been put forth to the world. Here it is: "The power to impose duties upon im ports originally belonged to the several States. The right to adjust" these duties, with a view to the encouragement of do mestic branches of industry, is so com pletely identical with that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one without the other. The States have delegated their whole authority over im ports to the General Government, without limitation or restriction, saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to the inspection laws. This authority- having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of pro- i tection does not exist in them; and, con sequently, if it be not possessed by the General Government, it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present J the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to counteract the most selfish and destruc tive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations. This surely cannot be the case; this indispensible 'power, thus surrendered by the States,must be within the scope of authority on the subject ex pressly delegated to Congress. In litis conclusion I am confirmed, as well bv the opinions of Presidents Washington, Jef ferson, Madison, ane Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued ac- quiesence of the States, and the general understanding of the people." Jackson's second Annual Message. Yet now Congress was to learn for the first time by Executive instruction that they possessed no constitutional pow er to protect our own home industry no power to countervail theinjurious reg ulations of other countries no power to protect the labor of our own citizens from the destruction which must be brought upon it by an unrestricted competition I with the pauper labor of Europe; but our own hardy sons of toil must be impover ished and ground down as long as the , wretched beggars iwler a foreign Govern ment were compelled by their necessities ( to labor at lower rates than freeborn Ame- ' ricans. Such was the doctrine distinct ly promulgated by the President in his Message, and especially by his Secretary of the Trcasurv. Well might tliev be , called extraordinary, for such they certain ly were. v ere the American people pre pared to sustain opinions like these ? Would they subscribe to the dogma that their own Government had no power to protect them ? That was the doctrine there was no evading it; and Mr. S. de sired to know whether this committee were prepared to give it the impress of tleir sanction ? This, however, was but one of the cx traordiuay doctrines in this most extraor dinary production. It contained others equally strange, equally new, equally per nicious in tendency, equally destructive in practical operation. Would the people believe it? This document from the Sec retary recommended the imposition of an excise on American manufactures to take the duties off British goods, and put on the American. Mr. Johnson, of Tennesree. here again interposed, and, as the gentleman was speaking a great deal about the protection of our home industry and demestic man ufactures, Mr. J. desired to ask him nnother question. When the Govern ment protected these manufactures, who paid? And if all were protected alike, what benefit was there in the protection? Mr. Stewart resumed. The gentle man asked bim who paid' The gentle man and his friends held the doctrine that the consumer always paid the duty, and the Secretary told the nation that the poor man was taxed eighty-two per cent, on cotton goods over the rich man. Yes. this poor man seemed a special favorite of the honorable Secretary: He had in troduced him ten times in the course of two paragraphs of the report. Hi3 sym pathy was greatly excited that this "un happy "poor man" was taxed one hun dred and fifty per cent, on his cotton shirt because there was a specific duty on im ported cotton goods of nine cents a yard. Now, if this specific duty of nine cents amounted to a hundred and fifty per cent. ad valorem that fixed the price of the cotton to the ,4poor man" at six cents a yard, for nine cents was just a hundred and fifty-per cent, on six cents. So the practicable effect of the horrid tax was, that this "poor man" got a good shirt at sixpence a yard. And Mr." S. would tell the gentleman another thing. When those most abominable - minimi ms, which so excited the wrath of the Secretary, had first been introduced in 1816 by William Lowndes one of the purest patriots and most intelligent statesmen that had ever graced these legislative halls, and sustain ed too, by John C. Calhoun, scarcely less distinguished India cotton goods, of the very coarsest quality, known to every lady at the time by the name of hum-hums cost thirty-three cents a yard; so that the "poor man" would then have had to pay four dollars for twelve yards of it, and the effect of the infamous minimum? had been , that every poor man in the country could now get a better article for six and a quarter cents. That was the way the people were taxed and oppressed by the protective system; and this was the man ner in.which the "poor man" was ground down to the dust to benefit his rich mo nopolist! The Secretary pursuaded this poor man that he was taxed eighty-two per cent, more than the rich man, and this was quite insufferable, yet he paid only six cents for what formerly cost him thirty-six cents, and bf an inferior quality at that. On that thirtv-six cents nrotec- tion laid a duty of nine cents, which was i but twenty-five per cent, ad valorem These dreadful minimums had, in their practical consequences, given the farmers ! a market, . given their children employ ment, made their -cattle profitable,- filled ! the country with the hum of contented industry, and had brought down the pri'.c of the poor man's clothing from thirty-six . cents a yard, down down down, as the system proceeded, till at bst it gave i it to him at six cents a yard. Now the Sccrctarv cried out that the dutv on these cottons was a hundred and fifty per cent, j ad valorem. Enormous! Horrid! And i whv? The duty had not changed, but the price had. As the price went down the duty went up. At thirty-six cents per yard, nine cents duty would be twenty-five per cent, at six cents a yard, the duty would be one hundred and fifty per cent.; and if the price descended "to one cent a yard, then the duty would be nine hundred per cent.! The poor man robbed plundered, andoppressd by a duty of nine hundred per cent., simply because he gets a yard of cotton goods for one cent a yard! Let the manufacturer run up the price to thirty-six cents ajain, and the op pression is all over; the duty of nine cents a yard falls instantly to twentv-rive per cent., a moderate revenue dutv. No more complaint; these friends of the "poor j man" are perfectly satisfied. Such was tl.c practical operation of these odious minimums whic had reduced the poor man's cotton goods from twenty live and thirty cents per yard to six and eight cents. Yet this was the system which must be given up; this was the op eration th.twassojopprc.vsive and so nnron slitnlional that it must be suffered to ex ist no longer upon our statute book! The dutv was to be taken off the foreign iroods and put upon American maunufaelure; such was the doctrine of this report. Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, here a gain asked Mr. Siewart, if the tarifl brought down the prices of articles taxed, what was it that brought down the price of other goods in the same proportion. Mr. Stewart replied that such wns not the fact. Other goods not manufactured here, silks, velvets, &c, had not declined in the same ratio, nor had washes or ajrri cultural produce; because the protective tariff had increased the supply of domes tic goods by increasing competition, and had sustained wages and agricultural pro duce by creating an increased de mand for both. If the gentleman could compre hend that demand and supply regulate price, it would be all plain. When interrupted, he had been contro verting the doctrines put forth by the Sec retary in his report. lie had referred to a table which had been reported to the House last session by the Committee of Ways and Means, for the purpose of showing the enormous tax which wns im posed by the system of minimums, but when the Secretary, by the assistance of the honorable chairman of the Commit tee of Ways and Means, was preparing with great labor and pains this document, he seemed to forget that he was at the same moment furnishing mathematical proof of the exact extent to which pro tection had reduced prices. By conver ting specific into ad valorem duties, the duty runs up precisely as the price runs down, so, by showing an increased rate of duty, the gentlemen have only shown reduced prices, Tnn duty is fixed, and cannot vary. The ad valorem duties are always the same. None were imposed by the tariff of 1812 above 50 per cent. How, then, docs the President, in his message, get duties of 200 per cent. This cm only be done by converting the specific duties into ad valorem duties; and, when this is done, a high duty only shows a low price. If the duty is 200 per cent., the price must be one-fourth only of the du ty. Thus we are told that glass pays the enormous duty of 200 per cent., and why I Because the duty is 1 per box, and the price $2 per box; but if the glass went down to $1 per box, the duty would be 400 per cent. Thus we are told by the Secretary of the Treasury and the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means that the people paid in all a tax of eighty-four millions, of which but twenty-seven went to the Government, and fifty-seven to the manufacturers; and he gave a list of sixty or seventy articles on which the duty amounted to more than a hundred per cent. Very well, and what did this prove? Why," simply that the prices of those articles had been greatly diminished, as in the case of cot tons. The same duty which, when levi ed, had been but 23 per cent., had now become 153 per cent., simply because the price had gone dow n to one-fourth part of what it was. So the main result of all the labor and ciphering of the chair man of the Committee of Ways and Means had been to furnish to the whole country official demonstration that prices had been reduced by a protective tariff to one-fourth or one-fifth of what they had been in 1816. Take a plain illustration: the tariff imposed a duty cf four cents per pound on nails which in 18 10 had been lf cents per pound; so that the duty then 25 per cent, on the price: but the same duty, we are told in this report, is 100 per cent., and how so? - Because the price had fallen from sixteen cents to four cents per pound. Very oppressive on the "poor man," who has thus- now to pay 100 percent, on nails! The ex planation of all this was perfectlv plain and easy. The effects of - competition- and of American industay had increase! the supply, and by an increased supply, in this as in all other cases had "reduce 1 the price of glass, cotton, Ac. whilst it had rendered the whole neighborhood prosperous by the increased demand lb. ( all the productions of the farmers, j Mr. S. thanked the chairman of th:; Committee of Ways and Mean for h'.a document; it had furnished to him and U the country undeniable proof, from th.; highest authority, to what an extent pn- ces had been reduced, insomuch that the duty on one article, though reasonable .a j first, had now risen to three hundred ai. I ' eighty-nine per cent, a i valorem brought j about solely by the reduction of price. .Mr. S. defied escape from this position. Let any gentleman take the report and ex amine it, and the more they examine. j the more they would be convinced thc j this was a true explanation of the who! j j matter. Yet this was held forth for thj purpose of exciting alarm; it furnished a topic for popular declamation; it mii.; persuade the "poor man" that he was greatly oppressed, because he paid a lax v.. two hundred per cent, on his wind.. . glass fdl to a dollar per box, he w ould j taxed four hundred per cent., or if by unv improvemcnt in the manufacture hj should be enabled to get his glass atlifi. cents a box, why then he would be p.w ing the enormous unheard of tax of .'. hundred per ecu'. This same "pu..r man" of the Secretary sometimes wanted to buy a few nails, and the Secretary larmed him by the intelligence that n'ul.3 were taxed a hundred percent, on their value. So they were, but what did hi pay for them? He used to pay sixteen cents a pound, but this wicked oppressiv e tariff had brought them down to four cents. Now, who did not sec that if a specific duty of four cents a pound c:i nails amounted now a a hundred per c-:t.l. should nails be brought down to a cent a pound, the duty would be four hundred per ceut. ? What an oppression to p.i nails at a penny a pound! Surely the :poor man" was likely to be utterly crush ed and ruined. Mr. S. said he had wished to point out some other of the extraordinary doctrines contained in this paper of the Secretary, and there was one which startled the coun try: it was covered up in cautious Lin gnnge, but when the veil was drawn r. side, and the truth exposed, he atru;i j warned gentlemen that it would start! i me. couiur). uic irec iraue oecrctary had recommended an kxcise on AmcK I can manufactures. Yes, that was thtf protection he had provided for Ameri-Mt industry, it was to take off the duty fn:;: foreign manufacture?, and put it on cur own. Hear him: "In accordance with thrse principles, it is believed that the largest practicable por tion of the aggregate revenue should L raised by maximum revenue duties upon luxuries, whether grown, produced, or manufactured at home or abroad." Let mechanics and manufacturers hra" that. Every American artisan shou! I hear it. The duly was to be on a ti-:!.; Arc, whether grown, produced, or manu factured at home or abroad." Here wus an American Secretary" distinctly recom mending to levy tfie highest rate of reve nue duties on goods manufactured at home. What else was an excise than :i tax on the manufactured goods of thi-t country? Yet this was the Secretary's recommendation. How would AmerL-nu manufacturers like it? Both in the message and in the report the Administration had given its mvi definition of what, according to its und? stmding, was a revenue standard of duty; and this was the humie of the Prei dent's message: "The precise point in the ascending scale of duties at which it is ascertained from experience that the revenue is great est, is the maximum rate of duty whl,'i can be laid for the bona fidt purpose of collecting money for the support of Gov ernment. To raise the duties higher than that point, and 'hereby diminish th.? amount collected, is to levy them forp. j tection merely, and not for revenue. As long, then, as Congress may gradua'ly increase the rate of duly on a given ar ticle, and the revenue is increased by such increase of duty, they are within th s revenue standard. When they go be yond that point, and, as they incre x?e th'3 duties, the revenue is diminished or d stoyed, the act cease? to have for its ob ject the raising cf m mey to support G jr ernment, but for protection merely." Here was the rule by which dutii were to be laid. The moment an Ameri can manufacturer had succeeded in sup plying our own market, and bejran to thrive in his business, that would be a proof that the duty was too high for reve nue: it was no longer a revenue duty but a protective duty, and it must forthwith be reduced. As the American furnished more goods to the country, l:s$ forel-i goods woul be imported, revenue wou'. be diminished, and the duty must contf? down: that was the rule. And now S. would ask, under such a rale .-,3 thLs what m3n in hi3 senses would invest a dol lar in manufactures? What was the pros pect before him? The moment.when, hy industry and enterprise, he should suc ceed in getting- the better of his farc'spi
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers