USA > New York > Columbia County > Hillsdale > A history of Hillsdale, Columbia County, New York : a memorabilia of persons and things of interest, passed and passing > Part 18
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
In the gentleman's strictures upon what I said in rela- tion to the interests of the wool-growers, I must says that the gentleman either wilfully perverted my meaning, or he is chargeable with a degree of stupidity for which I had not given him credit. He says, "his colleague is for let- ting in all foreign wool without any tax at all." I should like to be informed by the gentleman when he has ever heard me utter such a suggestion. It is true, I have spoken of the repeal of the tariff act of 1842 ; but have I
137
THE TARIFF QUESTION.
not at all times advocated the substitution of one more equal and just in its operations ? Did not the gentleman make his speech in opposition to the very act that I had been advocating some two weeks before he spoke, as a substitute for the act of 1842? When the gentleman made this charge, did he not know that I had advocated, with as much zeal as I was capable of, the very tariff act against which he spoke ? If he did, he purposely per- verted my language. If he has ever inferred from my speeches that I was advocating the abandonment of tariff duties, he must have very stupidly misunderstood the whole tenor of my remarks. No person in this House has advocated with more zeal than I have, that wool should have the incidental protection of as high revenue duties as were imposed upon any goods imported.
Let the gentleman look at his published speech, on page 8, and he will there read; "And yet his colleague was for letting in all foreign wool without any tax at all." Then let him look on page 9, and he will also read, "His colleague professed to desire to protect the wool-grower, and was for adopting Mckay's bill, putting all wool on a par, under a duty of 25 per cent." Let the gentleman look at those two paragraphs, and see whether, in his vocabulary, he has not got some brief word with which he might express such a palpable contradiction.
The gentleman professes to be the friend of the tariff of 1842, and also of the wool-grower. It certainly must be a tax upon the gentleman's ingenuity to reconcile these two attachments. Mr. Nathan Appleton, in his criticism up- on the report of Mr. Secretary Walker, says : "The man- ufacture of woolens has always given rise to the most difficult questions in the arrangement of the tariff, owing to the difficulty of adjusting the duty on wool to the sat- isfaction of both wool-growers and manufacturers." He also says : "Our own production of wool was much below our consumption." Sir, how was the controversy between 36
138
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
the wool-grower and the manufacturer adjusted by the act of 1842? To the manufacturer was given a protec- tive duty of 40 per cent. ; to the wool-grower there was given no protection at all. They were cavalierly told, that to protect wool was not protecting labor ; it would only be protecting the growth of sheep. They were told that if they could not live by wool-growing, to go at some- thing else. Sir, according to Mr. Appleton, our own pro- duction of wool was much below our consumption. Now, sir, it is one of the arbitrary and universal laws of trade that demand and supply are the controlling principle of price. If, then, our own production of wool was much below our consumption, then the demand would have been greater than the supply ; and had it not been for foreign wool, the price would have been at its highest rates. But under the operation of the tariff of 1842, the five per cent. wool (for little else has been imported) has been introduced to the amount of so many millions of pounds, that the supply has exceeded the demand ; and, in consequence, the price of our wool has sunk to the lowest rate known in our history. And yet the gentle- man is the professed friend of the tariff of 1842 and of the wool-grower. Sir, the Congress that passed the act of 1842 had before them the evidence that the manufac- turers were then enjoying a net profit of over 30 per cent., while that of the wool-grower was less than two per cent. That fact was stated and proved in the speech the gentle- man has seen fit to criticise. That fact, in the midst of the gentleman's criticisms, he has not seen fit to question, and therefore must be presumed to have admitted. And yet, in the face of these injuries, he would fain be consid- ered the friend of that unjust act, and also of the people suffering by its injustice.
The gentleman and his friends are horrified at the idea of ad valorem duties Nothing but specifics will, in their opinion, answer for either revenue or for protection.
139
THE TARIFF QUESTION.
Why did they not think of that when passing the act of 1842? Why vote down a number of amendments pro- posed for imposing specific duties upon wool, and finally turn it off with the lowest ad valorem duty known to our statute books ? Sir, their friendship for the wool-grower was of the same character with that of this very ingenious gentleman. Had the specific duty proposed by the gen- tleman from Vermont on the 12th of July, 1842, been adopted, it would either have stopped the importation of the 24,000,000 of pounds of wool of the past year, or, in- stead of the $50,000 of revenue received, it would have produced to the treasury $2,400,000. That amendment would have bestowed upon our wool-growers during the last year at least $5,000,000. But the act of 1842 did not allow of such a provision, and yet this friend of the wool- grower is an avowed friend of that act. Under the act of 1842, it is universally admitted, that on the imports of wool, the greatest frands have been committed ; in conse- quence, little revenue has been received upon large im- portations, and the wool-grower has received no protec- tion. By the bill lately before the house, those frauds would have been prevented, the accruing revenue would have been increased sixfold, and the wool-grower would have had the protection of thirty, instead of five, per cent. And yet the gentleman was the zealous opponent of that bill, the professed friend of the act of 1842, the professed friend to revenue and of the wool-grower, and the professed enemy of frauds. By the census of Massa- chusetts, in 1845, $8,887,478 worth of woolen goods were manufactured ; there were 3,901 men and 3,471 women employed in the manufacture of those goods. Now, al- lowing $20 per month to each man, and $10 per month to each woman, would produce a gross amount of $1,352,- 760 ; thirty per cent. upon the goods manufactured would produce the sum of $2,666,243, or the sum of $1,313,483 more than was required to be expended in the labor on
140
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
the whole amount of the goods. By this estimate, it will be seen that the duty in the late bill before the House would have given a protection to the woolen manufac- turer of Massachusetts to nearly twice the amount of the labor required in their business. And yet the gentleman from New York was for adding ten per cent. more to the protection of the manufacturer, and he was for denying to the wool-grower any protection against that foreign wool which has been shown to be working the destruc- tion of that grown in this country. In 1845, there were 1,016,230 pounds of wool raisel in Massachusetts, of which, 93,218 pounds were Saxony, 487,050 pounds were merino, and 435,962 pounds of common wool. The aver- age price for which the whole sold was 32 cents per pound. The late Prime Minister of England has told us that England requires annually 70,000,000 of pounds of foreign wool to supply her consumption. I have examin- ed their price current, and find that the lowest price paid for any wool grown in Europe has been 36 cents per pound, and the highest $1.36 per pound. The whole ex- pense of delivering our wool to the English manufacturer would be less than 4 cents per pound. But, sir, the act of 1842 deprives our wool-growers of this market, by im- posing a duty of from forty to one hundred per cent. up- on the goods taken in exchange for our wool, and we are left entirely dependent upon the home market for our sales, and at the mercy of our manufacturers for our price.
Those manufacturers have managed to have fine wool growing introduced into Buenos Ayres. They have man- aged to get the entire control of that market, Millions of pounds of a fine grade of wool are annually imported under false invoices, cheating our revenue, and ruining our domestic wool-grower. The act of 1842 denies us the power of selling our wool in a foreign market, and leaves us exposed to fraud and management, in competing with
141
THE TARIFF QUESTION.
foreign wool at home. Sir, the gentleman from New York says the law is sufficiently stringent, and the custom- honse officers must be at fault if those frands are allowed. The custom-house officers, sir, during the last year, seized upon 116 bales of that wool, fine and clean, that was im- ported as costing less than 7 cents per pound. But the law was found powerless. The fraudulent invoices were too ingeniously got up. The seizure had to be relin- quished, and the officers got laughed at for their pains. And, sir, the act that has produced all these consequences is a favorite law of the gentleman, and yet he is the friend of the wool-grower-a consistent statesman-a gentleman well qualified to give indignant lectures here ! But why this sudden outbreak of indignation with the gentleman ? If he imagined that the offensive words spoken in March applied to him, why has he lain festering under their in- fluence till July ? . May not the gentleman have taken a second sober thought upon this subject? May he not have received some new conviction in relation to the tariff ? He had listened some weeks to the debate upon that subject before his indignant expressions were pro- mulgated. May not in that time, some change have come over the vision of his dreams ? Sir, woolen manufactur- ers find it very much to their interest to have not only wool, but other agricultural productions, at a low rate of prices. They find the tariff to work admirably to produce such a result. As one of the allies of these manufactur- ers, the gentleman, as a matter of course, must be an ad- vocate of the act of 1842.
To my gentlemanly friend and colleague from the thir- ty-fouth district, [Mr. W. Hunt, | who made the inquiry where the charge had been made, that the agricultur- ists were dupes and fools for tolerating the protective policy under certain contingencies, I will answer, that he will find it in the Monmouth Enquirer of New Jer- sey, published on the 12th of March last, and addressed 36*
142
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
to the Committee of Ways and Means, a copy of which, I presume, all our members have been supplied with. I am carefully preserving the document, that in future years, when men shall have begun to grow incredulous that this unjust protective policy had ever existed, and politicians under new names shall be endeavoring to avoid being identified as among its advocates, that this publication may be referred to, as an antiquity, to show what curious doctrines have prevailed in this country, and by what extraordinary arguments they have been supported.
To the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Ewing, ] who so good-naturedly imputed to me a want of charity, in charging gentlemen with voting for expendi- tures, when he said the Whigs had so cordially voted for all the regular appropriations, I will answer, that had they voted with all that cordiality for only the expendi- tures that had been recommended by the Administration, or such as were justified by strong expediency, they would have deserved my thanks rather than my censure. But when I have seen them taking advantage of that amiable weakness, which I have imagined has prevailed a little on our, as well as on the other, side of the House, viz : dem- agogueism-when I have seen them associating them- selves with men on our side of the House, who, either selfish or sectional, were disposed to log-roll it a little, and when I have seen them turn assailants themselves, and propose local expenditures which they knew the tim- idity of some of our men would not permit them to resist in the face of the cupidity of their constituents-I say, when I have seen them resorting to all these means to hitch on local, sectional, and numerous amendments to all the regular appropriation bills, they have made themselves obnoxious to the charges I have preferred against them, viz : a desire to enhance the expenses of the Government, to create a necessity for high duties.
143
THE TARIFF QUESTION.
In reply to another honorable gentleman from Penn- sylvania, [Mr. Blanchard, ] who gave me a passing notice in his speech, I have to say, that if Pennsylvania repudi- ates in consequence of the repeal of the tariff, I have only to regret it ; but it will furnish no reason for the continu- ance of an unjust law. If he thinks New Yorkers are willing to impose upon themselves heavy burdens that Pennsylvania may impose tonnage duties upon their iron and coal, and thereby tax New York to pay for puplic works in Pennsylvania, expressly built to rival her own, he will find New Yorkers, when understanding the sub- ject, consenting to no such policy. The gentleman mod- estly asks us to only let them tax us for twenty years. He will find us not consenting to it for one hour. The gentleman charges my speech with being a false theory. He says "I have deceived myself, and by my ingenuity will deceive others." I think the gentleman will find my theories to be founded on facts not easily controverted. I will say to him, however, that he made a very good speech, without a fact or theory in it. He is doubtless deceived himself, but there is very little danger of his de- ceiving others.
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
SPEECH OF HON. JOHN F. COLLIN, OF NEW YORK, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 12, 1847.
In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union on the Three Million Bill.
MR. COLLIN addressed the committee as follows :
Mr. CHAIRMAN : Strange propositions, strange doctrines, and strange arguments, have characterized much of the proceedings of this session of Congress. Upon a propo- sition to strike from the civil and diplomatic bill the sal- ary of the President, almost all the subjects acted upon by the twenty-ninth Congress have been discussed.
A great principle of philanthropy has entered largely into our deliberations, pregnant with immense conse- quences of weal or of woe to our institutions. It has been approached by gentlemen with an apparent indifference, which I cannot feel. It has called out personal and gen- eral epithets, which I think cannot be excused ; and has been debated with a zeal, that, at least to superficial ob- servers, might be characterized with the name of vindic- tiveness. Some gentlemen on all subjects have discussed the war with Mexico-its causes, its objects, its conse- quences. Some have discussed annexation, Texas, and its boundaries. Upon these latter subjects, none have appeared to be more logieal than an honorable gentleman
145
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
. from the State of Maine [Mr. Severance. ] He endeavored to prove to us that Mexico was right and we wrong, in the war we are prosecuting. He endeavored to prove, that the President was the author of that wrong. He at- tempted to prove so, sir, if not mathematically, at least geographically. He attempted to discredit the geograph- ical references of the gentleman from Eastern Texas, [Mr. Kaufman,] by showing that those geographies, fixing the Rio Grande for the southern boundary of Texas, were got up only twenty-four years ago, and merely for the use of schools-merely for the purpose of teaching the rising generation where and what Texas was. His anthors, however, the gentleman claims to be older and better. Some of his authors, sir, bounded Texas on the north by the Mississippi, and others fixed the northern boundary short of the Red River. Of course, then, we must pre- sume, from the gentleman's reasoning, that because his authors made the northern boundary decidedly wrong, they must have made the southern boundary unquestion- ably right. In this way the gentleman proved the Nueces to be the true boundary on the south. Having thus in- geniously proved his premises, that gentleman places his country clearly in the wrong, for having claimed to the Rio Grande. The gentleman, with equal ingenuity, casts his censures on the President. Congress, by its acts, in which the gentleman had participated, had extended its laws beyond the Nueces ; the President, in the discharge of his duties, had sent the military to protect the terri- tory, over which those laws had been extended ; and, for- sooth, according to the gentleman's reasoning, is held highly culpable for sending military officers where Con- gress, in its majesty, had authorized the sending of civil ones.
Following somewhat the example set me by so many distinguished gentlemen, I shall not confine myself to the subject under consideration, but shall discuss some sub- 37
146
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
jects generally, and others in particular. I may, perhaps, present some suggestions, that may appear as extraordi- nary to gentlemen as theirs have appeared to me. Many of these suggestions, however, have sprung from the dic- tates of my own judgment. Their origin is humble- their fate is submitted to their merit.
Mr. Chairman, our country is engaged in a foreign war. Her sons have marched with the readiest cordiality to the scene of strife, prepared to assert her rights, and sus- tain her honor. They have endured the privations of the tented field, and the sufferings of a sickly climate. They have sacrificed the enjoyments of home, and the domestic society of friends and kindred. Whenever they have met the enemy, they have effected his discomfiture. They have vanquished him in the field, though opposed by a vast majority of numbers. They have assailed him when protected by the strongest defences, and have compelled him to capitulate. They have not only sustained the reputation of their fathers, but have given us a name be- yond what we ever before enjoyed. A large portion of the enemy's country has been overrun. Their power is now concentrated ; the final struggle must now be made, which will decide whether we can dictate reasonable terms, or have got to strive in a protracted war. These brave men have called for succor. They wish their ranks to be filled, which have been thinned by disease or the casualties of war. They wish associates to be sent to them, sufficient to enable them to meet the difficulties now to be encountered. They call for arms, munitions, provisions, clothing, pay, and all those comforts and sup- plies that a generous and wealthy country owe to those who are perilling their lives in support of her glory and her rights. Sir, the question is presented to this Con- gress whether they will respond as liberally and gener- ously in granting these supplies, as our soldiery have be- haved gallantly in contending with the enemies of our
147
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE
country. I hope, sir, that all of us will be induced to act upon this subject, as we shall wish our histories to be read by the generations that are to come after us. Doubt- less a difference of opinion may exist as to the most ju- dicions means of raising the revenue necessary in the procurement of the supplies required. Upon this subject I have the proud satisfaction in believing that my con- stituents will approbate my voting any reasonable amount, to be raised in any way that may be considered . most judicious, subject only to the controlling principles of the constitution. They have their preferences, doubt- less. They would submit, if necessary, quietly to direct taxation, but would prefer, if practicable, that it might be avoided. They would prefer an imposition of duties for revenne, as far as that can be made available for the re- quirements of the treasury, but desire that those duties should be so imposed as not to minister to the cupidity of the few to the oppression of the many. Wishing, as I most ardently do, that our brave soldiery shall not be denied, for want of ability on the part of our treasury, those succors which they have so reasonably required, and governed by the dictates of my own judgment and what I conceive to be the wishes of my constituents, I have been, and am, in favor of imposing a moderate duty on what has heretofore comprised our free list.
The sense of this House has not appeared to concur with me in opinion upon this subject. A special aversion has been manifested to an imposition of a duty upon tea and coffee. That I may not be misunderstood, here or elsewhere, I purpose to give to this matter specially, a little of my attention. Sir, I am in favor of this duty, because I believe none other can be imposed which will bear more equally upon the whole people of the United States. I am in favor of it, because it does not carry with it a corresponding tax, to be paid by the poor con- sumers for the benefit of rich producers. I am in favor
148
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
of it because no selfish interest can exist to oppose its re- peal, when we cease to need it for revenue. I am in favor of it, because no interests will be found convulsing the mation by trying to push the duty from twenty to one hundred per cent. I am in favor of it, because it cannot be used as a corruption fund, under the name of protec- tion, upon which aspiring demagogues may hope to ride into office. I am in favor of it, because it would not em- barrass or reduce our exports, as a large portion of this class of imports are not bought in exchange for our pro- ductions, but are paid for in cash. In fine, sir, I am favor of it, because my country is in war, and needs it as a rev- enue to support the expenses of that war.
Various, doubtless, are the motives which influence gentlemen in their opposition to the imposition of luties upon tea and Coffee. Most of them may be presumed to be governed by those of the purest character ; and yet to me it seems difficult to reconcile their conduct with prin- ciples of justice and common sense.
They express themselves opposed to the duty, because it imposes a tax, in common with others, upon the poor man ; and yet they have voted to increase the duty on the material of which the coat is made which he wears at his daily toil, and when, too, the tax on the material of that coat already exceeds that of a twenty per cent. duty on the yearly consumption of tea and coffee for his whole family. Sir, they express an aversion to impose a duty that may operate to tax poor men ; and yet many of these very gentlemen have voted to impose a duty of seventy- five per cent. upon all the sugar the poor man mingles with his coarse food ; and have, at the same time, voted to retain in force laws which have refunded the duties to the rich on more than five hundred millions of pounds of that same sugar. Sir, they express an aversion to tax the poor man twenty per cent. on tea and coffee, and yet they have voted to tax him fifty per cent. on all the molasses
149
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE
he has occasion to consume, and have voted at the same time to retain in force laws which have refunded to the rich the duties on over five hundred millions of gallons of that same molasses. Sir, as I have before said, doubtless many of those gentlemen who oppose that duty are influ- enced by the purest motives. To such I must say, that either they are mistaken in their views of public utility, and policy, or I am. Some, in their opposition may be influenced by principles of demagogism. Of such let me say to the poor man, that while they are most clamor- ous in their expressions of philanthropy, they need not be expected to turn on their heel to save the oppressed from public robbery. Some may be influenced by a feeling of personal animosity, having, perhaps, been denied some office for themselves or friends ; such persons have their accounts open to be settled with their constituents. Some may be influenced solely by political partisanship ; or why should they approbate a duty as a peace measure, which they oppose as a war measure ? Some may be in- fluenced by timidity, under the name of consistency ; or why fear to vote a duty which the country needs in war, merely because they opposed it in time of peace ? Some may be influenced by a desire to build up, through sel- fishness, large political combinations ; or why vote a duty of millions more on sugar and molasses alone, than the proposed law would impose on sugar and molasses, with tea and coffee superadded? Some may be influenced by motives entirely selfish ; or why vote a duty of one hun- dred per cent. on the cloths which the family of poor men need for their very existence, and refuse to vote a duty of twenty per cent. on tea, which is used only as a beverage ?
Sir, the reasons given by some gentlemen for their acts, are as extraordinary as the motives of others appear ob- jectionable. Some base their opposition upon the fact, that a duty on tea and coffee is a tax in which poor men participate ; and yet these same gentlemen have 37*
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.