USA > Indiana > Early Indiana trials: and sketches. Reminiscences > Part 28
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62
297
AGRICULTURAL ADDRESS.
It is too late for our farmers to correct this great error, but it is not too late for every farmer to supply the best substitute he can for the forest trees he has destroyed, so as to shield his dwelling from the scorching meridian sun, so oppressive in our hot summers.
The same train of thought applies to the destruction of onr timber trees at the present day. The marked distinction between a timbered nd a prairie country is, that the former is prepared for the second generation by the labor of the first, while the latter may be used and cultivated by the first occupant, to advantage. Marion county is just passing the first stage of improvement; the time was when it was necessary to clear off the woods, and convert the land into cultivated fields. This has been done in most cases to a sufficient extent, and it now behooves our farmers to preserve their woodlands from further destruction. This can be done by fencing, clearing out the under- growth, and sowing in blue-grass, making the woods ornamental and profitable, and securing to our farmers the enjoyment of the superior advantages of a cultivated timbered country over a widespread prairie region, like that which stretches west of our State to the Rocky Moun- tains.
Remember, that this is a government of the people, through the ballot-box, and consequently that it is the duty of every voter to exercise his elective franchise. The Constitution of the United States, and those of the several States, are hnt as dead charts for our guid- ance, without the impelling power of the ballot-box. Our admirable form of government, based upon the will of the majority, supposes that each voter will take part in its administration. Never fail to cast your vote for the men of your choice, and never forget that the suc- cess of our great experiment of self-government, and the perpetuity of our glorious Union, may depend upon the manner of the exercise of the elective franchise.
May I say, in closing, that after looking at the condition of man in all parts of the world, I am well satisfied that the citizens of Indiana, and especially the farming community, are in the enjoyment of as much real prosperity and happiness as has ever fallen to the lot of our race upon the earth, and that we see to day but the beginning, if we prove true to ourselves.
May each succeeding anniversary, as time rolls on, bring with it new evidences of the virtue, intelligence and industry of onr citizens; of the growth, usefulness and prosperity of this Society, and of the on- ward march of our beloved State and country to their destined great- ness, under the protection of our free institutions and the kind regard of an overruling Providence.
298
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
THE OTHER SIDE OF " FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE."
THE pamphlet entitled "THE OTHER SIDE OF 'FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE,' " by Hon. O. H. Smith, was published and widely circulated in the midst of the political campaign of 1843, and may still be read with some interest. It is therefore republished here :
A pamphlet, recently published and widely circulated in this State, evidently intended as a political text-book" in relation to the tariff policy of the United States, has rendered it due to the people of this State that the other side of that important question should be fairly and candidly presented to their consideration. That publication, by the leaders of the modern Democratie party, is not complained of. We are gratified to see our political opponents come out in the full blaze of day with their party doctrines, that the people may understand them. The principles and policy now openly avowed, have been charged upon them hy us for years, and the charge has been as often denied. This is the first time, it is believed, in the history of Indi- ana, that a political party has raised aloft, and flung to the breeze a flag inscribed with the Free Trade doctrines preached by Great Brit- ain and South Carolina. It is, therefore, due to the leaders of the party that avow the policy, as well as to the people, that the subject should be fairly presented on both sides. The pamphlet referred to having presented one side of this question, with some other matters, we proceed to give some thoughts and facts on the other side, for the consideration and reflection of the people. It is not proposed to fol- low precisely the order adopted by the writer of the pamphlet: we intend, however, to cover, substantially, the ground occupied by him ; to state his propositions fairly, and to give our views upon them can- didly. We have no other motive than to state the true issue between the parties, and to show upon which side of the line the American policy lies.
" What is a Tariff?"
This question is put and answered in the pamphlet, to suit the writer, and the use he makes of his definition in the argument. We answer, with all financial writers on the subject, that a tariff is a rate of duty established on imports by law. That duty may be higher or lower ; levied for revenue, or for the protection of American industry or for both united. It may be levied upon a horizontal ad valorem scale, applying the same rate of duty to all imported articles indis-
* Written by James Whitcomb, Esq., and read by him after his nomination as their candidate for Governor, before the "Democratic" Convention, held at Indianapolis, in January, 1843.
299
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
criminately ; or it may be levied upon principles of discrimination between different articles, as to the duty imposed, exempting some altogether from duty; or it may be what is called retaliatory, or coun- teracting foreign restrictions, even to the point of prohibition. It is understood that the writer of the pamphlet, with the rest of the free- trade school of politicians, deny and repudiate the powers maintained by us, derived from the Constitution, and indicated in the definition we have just given, and contend, First, That there is no Constitutional power to pass any tariff-law that shall include the protection of Amer- ican industry, above the point absolutely necessary for revenue, or, in the language of one of their most distinguished men, " That if we did not need money for the support of Government, we should have no tariff, and whenever the necessity ccases the tariff should cease."
Secondly, That it would be inexpedient to exercise the power, if we possess it, although a tariff for revenue might fall below the point of protection ; and of consequence,
Thirdly, That the free-trade doctrines, preached but never practiced by Great Britain and South Carolina, present the true policy of the United States.
The Whigs, with the old Republican party, maintain the Constitu- tionality and expediency of protecting American industry by tariff- laws, even above the revenue point, if it should be necessary to go above that point; and they repudiate the British free-trade doctrines, as being a mere delusion, and wholly impracticable.
Have we the Constitutional power to enact a protective tariff, above the revenue point, if necessary ? What is understood by protection ? It is the right of self-defense possessed by individuals in a state of nature, and carried with them into society, modified only by the laws that are thrown around them by the sovereign power. It is a right, in a national point of view, of defending the flag, the honor, the citi- zens, the property, and the industry of the nation, against the policy and laws of other nations, as well as against force without law. The power to pass laws for the government of a nation is of high preroga- tive, let the laws emanate from what source of power they may. The power to levy imposts is incident to all governments possessing sover- eignty, and without which power no government could long prosper. As it is in the power of self-defense, all independent nations maintain and exercise it. Great Britain exercised it for herself and her colo- nies, and the States that formed the Confederacy, after they threw off their allegiance to the mother country, exercised it in severalty. But when the Federal Constitution was formed, the States gave up the power to the General Government, and it was inserted in express
300
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
language in the Constitution of the United States. No one entertained a doubt but that the right to exercise this power in the most ample manner was essential to the prosperity of the people, and the inde- pendence of the nation ; hence, in order to give it more efficiency, and, among other objects, to enable the General Government to protect and promote the interest of the whole, so far as the exercise of this with the other delegations of power would enable her to do, it was expressly granted in the Constitution, that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, etc., etc.
WHAT SAY THE WITNESSES ?
We are aware that, in these heated party times, assertion is not always taken as proof; hence we prefer to bring before our fellow- citizens witnesses who will doubtless be credited by them, in support of our position. We shall not be able to present much of the testi- mony in the brief space allotted to this side of the question ; but what we lack in quantity we will endeavor to make up in quality. We may be pardoned for supposing that at least some of our witnesses might compare not unfavorably with the leaders of the modern free-trade Democracy of Indiana.
GENERAL WASHINGTON,
Who presided over the Convention, and who knew, perhaps as well as any man who ever lived, the object of forming the new Constitution, in his first annual message to Congress, on the 8th of July, 1790, said, " The safety and interest of the people require that they should pro- mote such manufactures as tend to render them independent of others for essentials." The first act of Congress on the subject was approved by him, and its preamble declares, " Whereas, it is necessary for the support of Government, for the discharge of debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandise imported, therefore," etc. That great man, and benefactor of mankind, continued through his whole administration to encourage and protect the industry of his country- men, as did the succeeding administration of Mr. Adams.
MR. JEFFERSON,
The apostle of the old Republican party, came into power in 1801, borne on the current of popular opinion. This whole subject, in all its bearings, was familiar to him. Hear him testify. In his annual message, in December, 1802, he laid down the following among the imperative duties of Government : " To cultivate peace, and maintain
301
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
eommerce and navigation in all their lawful enterprises, to favor our fisheries as nurseries of navigation, and to protect the manufactorics adapted to our circumstances. 0 0 By continuing to make these the rule of our action, we shall endear to our countrymen the true principles of the Constitution, and promote a union of sentiment and of action, equally auspicious to their happiness and safety." At another time he wrote : " When a nation imposes high duties on our productions, or prohibits them altogether, it may be proper for us to do the same by theirs, first burdening, or excluding those productions which they bring here in competition with our own of the same kind." The writer of the pamphlet says : " The names of Washington and Jefferson are sometimes claimed as favorable to a high protective tariff." Is it possible !! We say, that Mr. Jefferson not only goes to the point of protection by a high tariff, but to the still higher point of " exclu- sion," or prohibition in self-defense, and by way of eounteracting foreign restrictions.
MR. MADISON
Is a worthy witness ; no one can doubt his testimony on this ques- tion. He was conversant with every step of the Revolution, its cause, and the desired object of a change of government. No man, at any period of our history, surpassed him in soundness of judgment, or in Constitutional learning ; he was the avowed head, in his day, of the 1 great Republican party ; the national vessel was steered under his direction through the perils of the late war, and his country's flag, in all its glory, at the close was seen streaming in the breeze, from the mast-head. Hear him. In his first message to Congress, in May, 1809, he said : " 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 time of their just and provident care, to make such fur- ther alterations in the laws as will more especially protect and foster the several branches of manufacture." In his message of 1815, he says: " There is no subject which ean enter with greater force into the deliberations of Congress, than a consideration of the means to preserve and promote the manufactures which have sprung into exist- ence, and attained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States, during the period of the European wars; this source of national independence and wealth I anxiously recommend, therefore, to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress."
MR. MONROE Says in his inaugural address, "Our manufactures will likewise
302
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
require the systematic and fostering care of Government ; possessing, as we do, all the raw materials, the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend in the degree we have done on the supplies from other countries; while we are thus dependent, the sudden event of war unsought and unexpected, can not fail to plunge us in the most seri- ous difficulties. It is important, too, that the capital which nourishes our manufactories should be domestic, and its influence in that case instead of exhausting, as it may do in foreign lands, would be felt advantageously on agriculture and every other branch of industry ; equally important is it to provide a home market for our raw materials, as by extending the competition it will enhance the price and protect the cultivator against the casualties incident to foreign markets." Such was the judgment of that wise and patriotic republican, Mr. Monroe. Mr. Adams, his successor, held the same doetrines ; and, it is a remarkable faet, that while the different chief magistrates of this nation here differed as to other great matters of public policy, with regard to the constitutionality and expediency of protecting Ameri- can industry, they have held but one language. Some of our readers may be ready to ask us whether General Jackson agreed with the others in this matter: we know the potency of his name with many, and it therefore gives us pleasure to answer the question in the affirma- tive. We give you the testimony of
GENERAL JACKSON.
In his message of December, 1830, he says: "The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States. The right to adjust these duties with a view to encourage domestic branches of industry is so completely identified 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 imports to the General Government without limitation or reservation. * * The authority having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them, and consequently, if it be not possessed by the General Government it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry, and to counteract the most selfish destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations. This surely can not be the case. This indispensa- ble power thus surrendered by the States, must be within the scope of the authority or the subject expressly delegated to Congress." We shall for the present dismiss General Jaekson as a witness, but will bring him to the stand to testify several times before closing this
ยท
303
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
side of the question. To the authorities cited, and to the witnesses already introduced, any number of the prominent men of the nation, as well as Congress after Congress of the Republican school might be added. Mr. Clay has been referred to by the writer of the pam- phlet as favoring a high tariff, while he has omitted the vote of Mr. Van Buren for the high tariff of 1828, called by him the " bill of abominations." This does injustice to Mr. Van Buren, unless he has changed his opinions, and fallen in with the British free-trade doc- trines, to reconcile the South to " the Northern men with Southern feelings." Having fully sustained the Constitutionality of a protective tariff, we ask the reader to follow us into the question of the expedi- ency of the measure. Is it good policy to levy imposts for protection, or, in other words,
SHALL WE PROTECT OUR INDUSTRY ?
The expediency of affording ample protection to American indus- try, is maintained by the Whigs of Indiana, adhering to the old Republican doctrines; while the leaders of the modern Democracy of Indiana go for revenue alone, whether the industry of the country is sufficiently protected by the levy or not, following in the footsteps of the British and South Carolina free-trade school of politicians. The doctrine avowed and maintained by the Whig party is, that American legislation should foster and protect American industry ; while the leading modern Democrats contend, that no protection beyond the revenue point should be afforded in any event, and, consequently, that our manufacturers, mechanics, and artizans, must remain subject to the operation of European competition, with its pauper labor under foreign legislation, against the free labor of America ; putting our labor by necessity, in order to compete with the foreign, at the starv- ing prices paid to European serfs. The whole policy of protection has been assaulted by the pamphlet referred to, with an ingenuity and fertility of imagination worthy of a better cause; yet in it little can be found that is new. The British pamphlets and free-trade essays of the South give sufficient evidence that the writer does not stand alone as the disciple of this anti-American doctrine, but they preach it for us to practice upon, while they keep up their restrictions. We will proceed to examine some of the main points in controversy.
The writer sets out with the assumed position that a tariff is a tax on imported articles, and that the consumer pays that tax, and by tak- ing this position as granted, he may readily arrive at the conclusion to which he wishes to come, that if we should import $100,000,000 of foreign articles in a year, at an average duty ad valorem of 30 per
304
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
cent., of course the people have paid in the single year $30,000,000 of a tax, beside the profits and charges on the imports ; he is then enabled to cry out, is it thus that the Whigs are oppressing you with their high tariff? He is then prepared to show at once, that direct taxation is the best mode of raising revenue, because least expensive ; and, indeed, it may be safely affirmed, that were it not for the unpop- ularity of the position, the whole school of these leading free-trade modern Democrats would come out like McDuffie, Pickens, and Rhett, of South Carolina, in favor of direct taxation to raise revenue for the General Government; for if they really believe that the consumer pays the duty, the next step follows, of course, and the very moment you take from them this sandy foundation, their whole superstructure of free-trade falls to the ground.
DOES THE CONSUMER PAY THE DUTY.
Unquestionably, says the writer of the pamphlet; let us see. If this were so, why should Great Britain complain of our tariff ? If our citizens pay the duty, of what importance is it to her how much they pay, so that her merchandize is not prohibited ? If the consumer pay the duty, of what importance is it to us how high the rates are in Great Britain, so that our produce is not excluded ? Is such the understanding of the two nations? If so, would not each look on with perfect indifference while the one was levying high duties on her subjects, and the other burdening her own citizens with high taxes ? On the contrary, is it not the universal understanding of all civilized nations, that the restrictions and duties imposed by their tariff laws on foreign imports operate in a very great degree against the producer of the foreign articles, and not against their own citizens or subjects. The position that the consumer pays the whole duty or tax, as a gen- eral principle, reverses the whole order of commerce, and strikes at the vitals of all imposts ; but it is not true as applied to any other than imports of articles that neither come into competition with domestic articles, nor with articles admitted at a less rate of duty from abroad ; as the article of coffee, which is now duty free when imported in American bottoms ; and even that is doubted, as there never has been any identity between the price of coffee and the duty ; but suppose we should send coffee to Rio or Java, and there should be a duty levied upon it, where it would come into competition with the domes- tic article, would the consumer pay the duty ? or would the producer pay it before he could bring his article into market in competition with the Java or Rio coffee? Illustrate the idea further, by taking an article from the British tariff which will be found under the free-
305
FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
trade head of this side of facts. IIams from the British colonial posses- sions pay in Great Britain three fourths of a cent per pound duty, while United States hams pay two and three-fourths cents per pound duty. These hams come into competition in the Liverpool or Man- chester market. Would the British consumer pay two cents per pound more for the American ham of the same quality than he would for the other, merely to sustain the theory that the consumer pays the duty, or would the American producer pay into the British excheq- uer the duty himself, before he could sell his hams and the consumer eat it at the price he whould have to pay for the colonial ham, paying two cents per pound less duty ? So thinks John Bull, and so it would seem. The same idea may be illustrated by a grievance complained of by the Indiana boatmen, through a legislative resolve at the last session that their boats were taxed wharfage, and they had to pay a license to sell their produee at the towns on the Mississippi. This was to be sure a tax, but leading modern Democrats of the free-trade school would say that the boatinen had no ground to complain, as the whole loss fell at last on the consumer of the produee, and the boat- men in fact paid nothing. We ask those engaged on the river if they believe this doctrine. Two vessels land at Liverpool at the same time, one is loaded with Hindoostan, and the other with Carolina cotton ; the India eotton pays only eight eents per ewt. duty, while the Carolina cotton pays seventy-two cents by the British tariff; the cotton is of the same quality, to be sold in the same market : who pays the sixty- four eents per ewt. the difference of duty, the British consumer or the American producer ? Would the British manufacturer give sixty-four cents per cwt. more for the American article, so as to pay the duty, than he could buy the India article for? No, says the leading mod- ern Democrat, but the India article would sell for the increased price of the duty paid on the American artiele. If this be true, then the duty of seventy-two cents might just as well have been levied indis- criminately on both articles, so far as the British consumer was con- cerned.
Such is the fallacy of this doetrine.
DOES THE DUTY RAISE THE PRICE.
CERTAINLY it does, says the leading modern Democrat, precisely to the extent of the duty imposed. If it were not so, why do the man- ufacturers demand high duties ? This question is altogether satisfao- tory to the person who puts it and is deemed by him entirely conclu- sive of the matter, when in truth it is just as great a fallaey as the other, as all our experience has fully demonstrated; even at this very day
20
306
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
and under the high tariff of last year, goods were never lower, as every one knows. If the position of this free-trade school was truc, the price of goods would immediately have risen upon the passage of the tariff of 1842 : then how do you account for the desire of the manufacturers to have duties high? We answer, that they may be protected in a fair domestic, as well as foreign competition ; without being subjected with their limited means, to be overpowered by the concentration of the capital and the pauper labor of Europe to crush them, that those monopolists may have the exclusive markets of America for their own goods. The moment they can destroy our manufactures the field is open, hence they can afford to make a temporary sacrifice to reap the reward in the end. Hear Lord Brougham on that very point, and see how precisely he sustains these views. The imports to this country of 1815 amounted to $113,000,000, while the exports were but $52,000,000. The embargo and the war had proved to be nur- series for our domestic manufactures, and they were fast rising to the point of supplying the demand at cheap rates. Great Britain saw this, and at once applied the power she possessed through her vast capital and cheap labor to crush the American manufactures ; hence the excessive exports from that country to this in 1815. These exports were made, beyond a question, at a great sacrifice on the part of the British manufacturer, but their object was to destroy our manufactures at a blow, and not to make profit on their goods. Lord Brougham in his speech in Parliament let out the secret. He says, " The peace of America has produced somewhat of a similar effect, though I am very far from placing the vast exports which it occasioned with those of the European market the year before ; both because ultimately the Ameri- cans will pay, which the exhausted state of the continent renders very unlikely and because it was well worth while to incur a loss upon the first exportations in order by the glut to STIFLE IN THE CRADLE those ris- ing Manufacturers in the United States." It is one object of the pro- tective laws to prevent this. The American manufacturer requires only to be protected in a healthy and uniform competition with others. The tariff for protection gives this, while the external and internal competition bring down the manufactured article to the lowest price for which it can be afforded ; the supply at all times being greater than the necessary demand of any given article, the manufacturer as well as the merchant or trader, being in direct competition with other man- ufacturers and traders at home and abroad, it is impossible that any article can remain a day above its lowest minimum. But Manufac- turers are
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.