The Somerset herald and farmers' and mechanics' register. (Somerset, Pa.) 183?-1852, December 23, 1845, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

New Series.
Vol. 4.-No. 6.
From the New York Recorder.
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.
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
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
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