USA > Indiana > Early Indiana trials: and sketches. Reminiscences > Part 53
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
35
546
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
idea is entertained here, that we shall have a sworn agent in Great Britain, who will keep our secrets and send our messages, and further our warlike purposes against Great Britain. No, sir, the idea is utterly absurd in itself. I do not mean that it is absurd as it comes from any body else's mouth. I desire to be courteous ; but I say that the idea, when you come to look at it, is absurd ; because it is impos- sible. It can not be done. You may make as many treaties as you please ; you may combine the letters of the alphabet into every possi- ble form, and you may make your treaty just as binding as you please. To make it practicable, you must have an agent at the other end of the line in Great Britain, sworn to keep your warlike secrets. Do you not see, sir, that it can not be done ? If you mean to prepare for war, this is not a war measure. It can not be made subservient to the pur- poses of this Government in war, and is not calculated or intended for any thing of that sort. The great question is, is it a measure of peace and progress, and information ? Is it of the character of our post- office and our inland telegraph ? If it be so, let us take it on its merits as a peace measure, and admit-I will, for my humble self, as a friend and advocate of the bill-that it has no merits as a war measure, and can not, by possibility, be made subservient to that end.
547
MILLARD FILLMORE.
MILLARD FILLMORE.
FOR many years the subject of this sketch has filled a large space in the public mind, both in America and Europe, whether as con- nected with the State of New York and her politics, as a representa- tive in Congress from his District, or as President of the United States. Mr. Fillmore has filled a very high position with firmness and great practical good sense, demonstrating to the world that he pos- sesses a mind of a high order. It is not my purpose to speak of the Administration of Mr. Fillmore, as President of the United States. That is before the world and speaks for itself. Nor is it desigued to enter into any of the embarrassing questions that beset him, nor yet to show his position in relation to the great parties of the United States, coming into power not by an election to the first office, but by the death of President Taylor. I choose to give my readers Millard Fillmore as he was, while chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, in the House of Representatives of the United States, in the year 1842, at the time of the passage of the tariff of that year. I was at the time in habits of daily close intimacy with him. I greatly admired him as a ready, clear-headed, pleasant, common-sense man. Mr. Fillmore discharged the arduous duties of chairman of the eom- mittee to the admiration of both sides of the House. He seemed to have in his head the whole financial condition of the Treasury in detail, with strong views of the policy to maintain its credit. Mr. Fillmore was a warm Whig, a devoted friend of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. He placed himself strongly upon the American policy, and the perpetuity of the Union. I give the reader a valua- ble extract from his great speech in favor of the tariff of 1842, which will be read with interest at this day, since the operation of that act, and that of 1846, have been tested by the American people.
" Every one must admit that the question under consideration is one of the greatest magnitude. Nothing of a purely domestic char- acter, affecting more interests, and calculated to excite more universal feeling for or against it, could be submitted to an American Congress. It involves the exercise of the highest legislative power-that which compels the people at large, who have established this Government, to contribute the necessary means to sustain it. Surely nothing short of the questions of war and peace can be of more importance to this coun- try than the mode in which we shall exercise this highly responsible and delicate trust of raising revenue for the wants of the Government. I am free to confess that the subject is so vast in extent, and so compli-
548
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
eated and multifarious in its details, that I approach it with doubt and distrust of my own powers, and unfeigned regret that this duty has not been assigned to more able and experienced hands.
" But, sir, what has been our course en this subject in this country ? Why, for all political, commercial, and financial evils, some gentlemen maintain that free-trade is the great panacea. It is with them the philosopher's stone : it would prevent revulsions in commerce, supply the wants of your Treasury, and promote the prosperity of the com- munity. Others again, frem other parts of the country, maintain that protection to home manufacturers is the great desideratum, and the true remedy for all these evils. Each has his own peculiar theo- ries, and adheres to them with the blindness of prejudice and the tenacity of self-interest-each omitting, if not unwilling, to investi- gate the facts on which his own cherished theory is based ; and the thunders of popular commotion produced by the storm of nullification have hardly died away in the distance, when the horizon gives omin- ous signs that another storm is approaching, and that this House and the country are again to be agitated by a fierce and blind contest about mere abstractions, while truth is obscured by the smoke of the fight, and lost sight of by the contending parties. I now proceed to the consideration of the bill itself, its design and object. It has been framed with a view of raising revenue to supply the wants of the Treasury, and I propose to consider it mainly as a revenue measure. The first question, therefore, is : What amount of revenue is required to carry on the Government ? For on this, in some measure, must depend the rate of duty imposed on every article in this bill. It is preliminary to all other questions, and should be first settled. In determining this, the opinion of the financial officer of the Govern- ment should have great weight, and I beg leave to call the attention of the House te his recent report to this House, submitting the pro- ject for this bill.
"From this it will be perceived that the Secretary estimates the ordinary expenses of the Government for each of the years 1842, 1813, and '44, at $26,356,358.95, beside the liabilities of the Government for debts, Treasury notes, etc., which swell the amount to some $7,000,000 or $8,000,000 more for each of these years, making the total required for the three years $98,242,953.73. The debts and other liabilities mentioned may be easily and certainly calculated, as their amount is knewn and must be paid; but not so with the ordinary expenses of the Government. They vary from year to year, and will depend much on the administration of affairs. It may not, however, be inexpedi- ent to refer to the past to enable us to judge of the future. Indeed,
549
MILLARD FILLMORE.
experience is the only true test in these matters. I therefore call the attention of the House to Doc. No. 31, furnished to this House at the extra session, from the Treasury Department, and at page 26 of that document you will find the following statement of disbursement, during the four years of Mr. Van Buren's administration, for the ordinary expenses of Government, viz :
In 1837, - $31,610,003 09
In 1838,
31,544,396 19
In 1839,
- 25,413,716 94
In 1840, -
22,389,356 31
Total,
- $110,987,472 53
Being an average of $27,746,868.13 for each year.
" If this past experience affords a guide for future action, we may calculate that the annual expenses of the Government hereafter will be between $27,000,000 and 828,000,000, independent of the amount necessary to be raised for the publie debt now existing ; but I trust that we shall hereafter have more economy in the administration of public affairs, and that we shall not only expend less, but make a more beneficial application of what we do expend. But there has been much discussion on this subject, both in this House and the other, and some of the oldest and ablest statesmen in both branches have gone into lahorious and ingenious investigations to show the probable expenditures hereafter. Their results, varying from $18,- 000,000 to 826,000,000, show how difficult the task is, and how little reliance can be placed on their estimates, where so much must be left to conjecture. I shall not attempt to follow them.
" From the indications which we have seen here for a few days past, we might infer that a spirit of retrenchment had come over this House, and that the army and navy are to be greatly reduced. However I may regret the inconsiderate haste with which those acts were perpe- trated, which, to my mind, savored more of destruction than judicious reform, yet it must be admitted by all, if the Senate concur with this House in those measures, the annual expenditures of Government
will be diminished. Taking all these things into consideration, I am willing to assume the ordinary expenses of Government will, for some years, if peace continue, be reduced some $3,000,000, or $4,000,000, annually ; and, if so, we may reasonably calculate that they will not exceed about $24,000,000, and may probably come as low as $23,000,- 000; but this is rather to be desired than expected. But, allowing $24,000,000, which I think, is the safest estimate, and add to that
550
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
$3,000,000, to pay the interest on the public debt, and provide a sink- ing fund for the ultimate payment of it, and you will require an annual revenue of $27,000,000, to meet the demands on the Treas- ury. I shall therefore assume that that amount must be pro- vided. This being the amount, the next question is, how shall it be raised ? In what mode can these $27,000,000 be supplied to the National Treasury, with least inconvenience to the people ? Let us turn to the great charter, whence all our power is derived, and see what that says.
" The very first grant of legislative power in the Constitution, is an authority to supply the requisite revenue to carry on the Government. The eighth section of the first article of the Constitution is in the fol- lowing words :
" ' The Congress shall have power to lay and colleet taxes, duties, imposts, and exeises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, im- posts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.'
" There is the grant of power by which the Treasury is to be sup- plied. We can take our choice from three modes, and three only. First, we may lay a direct tax ; or, secondly, we may lay excises ; or, thirdly, we may lay duties or imposts. Now, to which shall we resort ? We must select one, as no other power is given, unless it be to bor- row money ; and none will think of that for the ordinary wants of the Government. If gentlemen will take the trouble to look into the annual printed account of receipts and expenditures for 1840, at page 242, they will find a tabular statement of all moneys received into the Treasury, from every source, from the commencement of the Gov- ernment under the present Constitution, on the 4th of March, 1789, up to and including the year 1840. The whole amount received from all sources, except loans, was upward of $900,000,000. And from what sources do you suppose this vast amount was drawn ? (Mr. Fos- ter, of Georgia, was understood to inquire, if the amount collected by direct taxation was included in the statement of the gentleman ?)
Mr. Fillmore .- " I speak of the whole amount collected, from the commencement of the Government down to 1840, inclusive, for the purpose of paying the debts and defraying the necessary expenses of the Government. During that time there have been periods when the ingenuity of man was taxed to its utmost to devise ways and means for supplying the Treasury ; and the history of our Government for more than fifty years, is worthy of consideration, on a subject like this. I will give you the sources whence this immense amount was derived.
551
MILLARD FILLMORE.
They are as follows :
From customs, or dutics, - $746,923,302 20
From exeisc, or internal revenue, 22,265,242 06
From direct taxes, 12,744,737 56
From postage, 1,092,227 52
From the public lands, 109,314,223 69
Dividends, and sale of bank stoek, and bonus, 20,889,977 75
Making a grand total of $913,179,710 78
" Thus you have the history of exeise duties. They originated with the Long Parliament, which was afterward dissolved by Cromwell. Both parties promised to abolish them at the close of the war. We need hardly be told by Blackstone, that, from their origin to the present time, their name has been odious, yet they have been contin- ued in Great Britain, and must be, for there cvery source of revenue has been exhausted, and every mode of taxation resorted to which ingenuity could invent, to raise the necessary mcans for carrying on an expensive government, and paying the interest upon their enor- mous public debt. And finally, the recent proceedings in Parliament show, that they have been compelled to adopt the war measure, and tax incomes to supply the deficiency. But I trust the necessities of such a nation are not to furnish precedents for us. Direct taxes and excises may be necessary and unavoidable in time of war ; but those who would resort to them in time of peace would do well to read the legislation and reports on these subjects, and especially a report made by Mr. Randolph, in 1802, as Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in which he states, that the expenses of collection are more than one-fifth, or 20 per cent; that the duty is oppressive and vexatious, and peculiarly obnoxious to our citizens ; that the nature of excise is hostile to the genius of a free people, and its tendency is to multiply officers, and inerease the patronage of the Executive ; and he finally recommends a total repeal. If other evidence is wanted that excise is odious to our people, it may be found in the insurrection of Pennsylvania against this very tax. With all these facts staring us in the face, is there any one here so bold as to propose excise duties on our own manufactures, to supply the necessary means of carrying on the Government? If not, what remains ? Nothing but the duties on imports ; and to lay these duties is the object of the bill upon your table. This being the only remaining mode authorized by the Con- stitution, I deem it unnecessary to go into any argument to show that it is the best mode. All our experience proves that fact, and I owe
4
552
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
an apology to the House for having occupied so much of its time in showing the objections to direct taxes and excise duties. But for a series of years I think we may rely upon this bill producing, on an average, about 827,000,000, annually. Yet, after all, any person who will look over the past years, and see how the revenue from customs varies, must be satisfied that we can not calculate with any certainty for any particular year. All we can rely upon, is a general result for a series of years. The deficiency of one is supplied by the excess of another, and so vice versa, each compensating the other. The amount has varied, within a few years past, from $13,000,000 to $24,000,000. Assuming, then, that this bill will only produce from $25,000,000 to $27,000,000, it seems to me there is an end of the questiou, unless some gentleman can show that the duty on any particular item should be increased or diminished, with a view of adding to the amount of revenue.
" It is unnecessary to talk about levying duties for protection. If it is not expedient to resort to dircet taxation, or eccises, to supply the Treasury, then we have no alternative but impost duties, such as this bill proposes to lay, and protection to a reasonable extent becomes an incident which need not be sought, for it can not be avoided. It results as an inevitable consequence from a necessary and unavoidable act, and the bill becomes, as it was designed to be, a revenue bill, and a revenue bill only.
" Although this is the view which I am disposed to take of this bill, and although I am willing to listen to any amendments to add to or di- minish the duty on any article, with a view of increasing the revenue, yet, I have no disguise of my own sentiments on the subject of pro- tecting our own industry. I am free to admit that I am not one of those who either feel or profess to feel indifferent to our own interests. I prefer my own country to all others, and my opinion is, that we must take care of ourselves; and while I would not embarrass trade between this and any foreign country. by any illiberal restrictions, yet if by legislation or negotiation, an advantage is to be given to one over the other, I prefer my own country to all the world besides. I admit that duties may be so levied, ostensibly for revenue, yet design- edly for protection, as to amount to prohibition, and consequently to the total loss of revenue. I am for no such protection as that. I have no disguise of my opinions on this subject. I believe that if all the restrictive systems were done away with, here and in every other country, and we could confidently rely on continued peace, that would be the most prosperous and happy state. The people of every country would then produce that which their habits, skill, climate,
553
MILLARD FILLMORE.
soil or situation, enabled them to produce to the greatest advantage ; each would then sell where he could obtain the most and buy where he could purchase cheapest ; and thus we should see a trade as free among the nations of the world as we now witness among the several States of this Union. But however beautiful this may be in theory, I look for no such political millenium as this. Wars will oceur until man changes his nature; and duties will be imposed upon our pro- ducts in other countries until man shall cease to be selfish, or kings can find a more convenient mode of raising revenue than by imposts. But, there is yet another ease where I hold that we are not only justified but required to cneonrage and protect our own industry; and I regret to say that this is a ease which for obvious reasons, always has, and I fear always will, exist : it is where foreign nations, by their own legislation, exelude our products from their markets. We, as a whole, are an agricultural nation, occupying one of the broadest and most fer- tile tracts of country in the world. The South produces sugar, cotton, rice, and tobacco, and the North and West produce beef, pork, and breadstuffs. It appears, by the last eensus, that we have 3,717,756 persons engaged in agriculture, and only 791,545 in manufactures and trades, being near five to one employed in agriculture. Our lands are cheap and our soils productive ; but if other nations prohibit the introduction of our products to their markets by high duties, what is our remedy ? We want their manufactures ; we offer them our bread- stuffs in exchange ; but they refuse to receive them : what shall we do ? I say, meet restriction by restriction. Impose duties on their manufac- tures, and thereby encourage a portion of our own people, now raising wheat and corn to rot in their granaries, to engage in manufactures ; thus lessening the amount of agricultural products, by converting a part of your producers into consumers, thereby creating a home market for your agricultural products, and thus raising their price. Is not this just ? Great Britain has no right to complain that we meet restrie- tion by restriction. We offer her our flour, pork, and beef for her iron, eloths, and other manufactures. She refuses our products, and draws upon our specie, crippling our banks, deranging our curreney, and paralyzing our industry. We must protect ourselves, create and pre- serve a market for our own products, until she will consent to meet us on equal terms ; and this, not by way of retaliation, but in self- defense. " But I take a distinction between the encouragement and protection of manufactures. It is one thing for the Government to encourage its citizens to abandon their ordinary pursuits and engage in a partieu- lar braneb of industry, and a very different thing whether the Gov- ernment is bound to protect that industry by laws similar to those by
554
EARLY INDIANA TRIALS.
which it encouraged its citizens to embark in it. In the first place, there is no obligation on the part of the Government ; its act is entire- ly voluntary and spontaneous. It may, or may not, encourage the production or manufacture of a particular article, as it shall judge best for the whole community. Before attempting it the Government should weigh well the advantages and disadvantages which are likely to result to the whole, and not to the particular class which may be tempted to engage. If a particular branch of industry is so important in its bearings upon the public wants, ou account of its providing in time of peace, for some necessary article in time of war, then, as the strongest advocates of free-trade themselves admit, the Govern- ment may and should legislate with a view to encourage its establish- ment; and so, likewise, if it be necessary to provide a home market for our products, in consequence of the prohibitory duties levied upon them by foreign countries. But all these are questions to be decided according to the circumstances of each particular case; and, as I said, the decision should be made with a view to the benefit of all, and not of a few, or of any particular class or section of country. But when the Government has decided that it is best to give the encouragement, and the citizen has been induced by our legislation to abandon his former pursuits, and to invest his capital, and apply his skill and labor to the production of the article thus enconraged by Government ; then a new question arises, for another party has become interested, and that is, whether we will by our subsequent legislation withdraw our protection from the citizen whom we have thus encouraged to emhark his all in a particular branch of business for the good of the public, and overwhelm him with ruin by our unsteady, not to say per- fidious legislation. I can consent to no such thing. It seems to me to be manifestly unjust. Our act, in the first instance, is free and voluntary. We may give the encouragement or not; but, having given it, the public faith is to a certain extent pledged : those who have accepted our invitation, and embarked in these new pursuits, have done so under the implied promise on our part, that the encour- agement thus given should not be treacherously withdrawn, and that we would not tear down what we had encouraged them to build up. This I conceive to be a just, clear, and broad distinction between encouragement beforehand and protection afterward. The former is voluntary, depending wholly upon considerations of public policy and expediency ; the latter is a matter of good faith to those who have trusted to the national honor. There is a further necessity for dis- crimination ; and this, I suppose, will be strongly urged by the anti- protection men ; it arises from the fact that the article on which you
555
MILLARD FILLMORE.
impose the duty can be produced as cheaply, or nearly as cheaply, in this country as in any other. In such cases a small duty becomes prohibitory. Take, for instance, raw eotton or flour. We produce more of these articles than we consume. They can hardly be import- ed without duty, and a very small duty is entirely prohibitory ; and when we become a manufacturing nation it will be so with regard to all our manufactures. Great Britain has reached this point, and hence we witness the strange phenomenon of Sir Robert Peel, as the leader of the British House of Commons, declaring himself in favor of free- trade, and against the imposition of any duty on manufactures over twenty per cent. And why is this? Simply because Great Britain manufactures more than she wants for her own consumption. Any duty, however high, is merely nomiual, as nothing can be imported ; and no duty affords any protection, in the foreign market, where she has to meet and compete with all the world. The truth is, she has practiced the protection system so long that her home market is sup- plied by her own manufactures and now, forsooth, she pretends to great merit in reducing duties which she can no longer collect. But mark the eaution with which Sir Robert Peel speaks of the duty on sugar. He declines explaining why he does not recommend a reduc- tion of duty on that article. Is not the reason obvious enough ? The climate of England is too cold to produce that article. No duty, however high, can operate as a prohibition, so long as people will use it; and it may, therefore, be taxed to almost any extent for revenue. This, doubtless, is the true reason why the duty is not reduced. It is known to the House that there are two modes of imposing duties- one ad valorem, the other specifie; one looking to value, the other to quantity merely. I am aware that there is a feeling, which has per- vaded the community ever since the Compromise Act, in favor of ad valorem duties, as the preferable form of the two.
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.