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 19
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
150
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
.
voted, and doubtless would again, to tax the poor man on a large portion of his family necessaries, as high on twen- ty cents as the rich man would have had at the same time to pay on eighty cents.
Some base their opposition upon the ground, that a tax on tea and coffee would bear more heavily on the North than it would at the South, in our Union ; and yet their good sense should teach them that there is scarcely an article of import upon which that argument would op- erate less, than it does on tea and coffee. Their good sense should teach them, that if that argument was worth anything, it should operate to reduce the duty on cloths, as difference of climate alone gives a great preponderance to their consumption at the North. If that argument is worth anything, it should operate to reduce the duty on sugar, as it is a staple of the South, and a majority of it consumed at the North.
But, sır, there are other matters that should influence statesmen in the consideration of this subject. It is a conceded point, that legislation should give all consistent encouragement to the purchasers of the surplus produc- tions of our country. Now, sir, what has heretofore been our legislation upon this subject ? Seventy millions of dollars worth of our imports, which have been bought of those who have purchased eighty millions of dollars worth of our surplus productions, have been burdened with the weight of producing nine-tenths of our revenue. Whereas, fifteen millions of dollars of our imports, bought of those who refuse to buy our productions, and to whom we have to pay annually a balance of trade of about twelve millions of dollars, are admitted into our ports either almost or altogether free of duty. Is that policy just to ourselves ? Is it generous to those with whom we deal? Can reasons be given why that should ever have been our policy ? To have taxed the free list would have imposed no heavier burdens upon the consumer, than the
151
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
duty on those imports which have borne the weight of taxation. More than this, sir ; whatever burdens a tax on the free list would have imposed, would have gone ex- clusively into the treasury, for the common benefit of the nation ; whereas, the duties heretofore levied have im- posed a corresponding tax, by which the poor consumer has been compelled to pay largely to swell the already plethoric coffers of the rich. Sir, in this view of the case, principles of justice, of generosity, of economy, of philan- thropy, admonish us that that free list ought to be taxed ; and that other imports of as great or greater necessity, should be relieved from their burdens as fast as circum- stances will justify.
But perhaps the consideration which influences gentle- men more than all others, in their opposition to the duty upon tea and coffee, is the hope that the exigencies of the war will drive the Government to a larger system of dis- criminating in the imposition of duties, thereby minister- ing to the cupidity of those, whose already attained wealth gives them an overshadowing influence in control- ing the politics of the country. To this object of these gentlemen, I am opposed by every consideration of love to my country. I oppose it because I think it highly un- just to the people. I oppose it because I think it vio- lates the principles of the Constitution, and is repugnant to every principle of expediency. I shall crave the indul- gence of the committee, while I dwell somewhat at large upon this branch of the subject. My attention shall first be briefly given to some of the features of the policy which affects most particularly, in my estimation, the principles of the Constitution. Perhaps it may sound somewhat antiquated to appeal to the Constitution as a rule of right, (except for the protection of the citizens of our enemies,) but the time has been, when that Constitu- tion was viewed with some degree of veneration. The time has been, when its provisions were considered
152
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
among the wisest productions of the human intellect. And we still retain the form upon taking our seats in this Hall, of swearing to its maintenance. But, sir, either I am mush mistaken in my judgment and observation, or that veneration has ceased.
I either misjudge, or a wild, unlimited system of con- struction, has caused that instrument to cease to control the legislative action of this Government. I might have wished to have given my views more generally, and have considered other subjects in connection with my constitu- tional views, but it is a matter of some doubt whether I shall ever avail myself of an opportunity to do so.
I certainly shall not undertake to state here the many instances in which I believe our Government, in its legis- lation, has long been transcending its constitutional limits. The occasion does not now require it, and my limited time will not now allow of it. But, sir, I shall claim the indulgence of the committee while I briefly refer to some cases which are pertinent and important to the subject matter of the point I purpose to discuss.
The Constitution provides that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and ex- cises, to pay the debts and provide for the common de- fence and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Now, sir, I can discover no difference between a neg- lect to impose duties with the required uniformity, and a partial refunding them after they have been so uniformly imposed. When a uniform duty has been imposed upon iron ; to leave that duty a tax and burden upon those who may use it for agricultural and other purposes, and to refund it to those who may use it for a railroad track, I claim to be a violation of the Constitution.
Where a uniform duty has been imposed upon West India molasses ; to leave it as a tax and burthen upon the
153
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
poor man who uses it as a beverage to give a zest to the coarse fare of his family, and to refund it to the manu- facturer who converts it into New England rum, I con- ceive to be a violation of the Constitution. When a uni- form duty has been imposed upon West India sugar ; to leave it a tax and a burthen upon the man who consumes it in his family, and to refund it to the manufacturer who carries it through a process of refinement, I conceive to be a violation of the Constitution. Sir, the framers of that clause in the Constitution which I have before quot- ed, must be presumed to have had some motive in insert- ing that clause of uniformity. And could that motive have been other than to introduce a just uniformity in the effects to be produced by the imposition of those duties-uniformity in the burdens imposed-uniformity in any incidental benefits accruing ? and uniformity is re- quired in the effect upon the general interests, in the direct benefits growing out of the application of the moneys received. Then, sir, discriminations in the impo- sition of duties, and particularly when not made with reference to objects of revenue, but to promote sectional or individual interests, is a violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
To impose a duty upon one kind of iron, at a rate higher than is imposed upon another; or to impose a duty upon cloth, at a per cent. higher than is imposed upon the materials of which cloth is made ; or to impose a duty on a piece of cloth costing six cents per yard, as high as is imposed upon a piece of cloth costing twenty cents per yard, I conceive to be as much a violation of the Constitution, as an imposition of a tax upon New York, for the benefit of the nation, from which Boston might be exempted. Sir, attempts have been and may again be made, to justify discriminations for specific pur- poses under the clause in the Constitution delegating the power "to provide for the general welfare." An argu- 38
.
154
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
ment can scarcely be conceived of a more insidious or dangerous character-one which opens the door wider than all others, to enable the rich and powerful to tram- ple upon the rights of the more feeble-one the most illimitable in its operations, and one before which the Constitution must cease to exist as anything but a shadow. What act of local interest might not be per- formed under such a construction, when the mere fiat of a majority of Congress is left to pronounce upon the con- tingent incidental consequences ? Fortunately, sir, a ques- tion of that importance is not left in doubt, but is speci- ally provided for by the Constitution itself. By a refer- ence to that instrument, the power to provide for the general welfare is made subject to that uniform imposi- tion of duties. Let the provision speak for itself : "Con- gress shall have power to collect duties and provide for the general welfare, but all duties shall be uniform throughout the United States." In other words, if the general welfare is to be promoted through the imposition of duties, still those duties shall be uniformly imposed.
I am well aware that a principle of construction has been resorted to, to obviate the objection I have raised. I am well aware, sir, that it is claimed, that if the duty is made uniform on a single article throughout the United States, that a different duty may be imposed upon a dif- ferent article, or upon the same article in some subdi- vided form, and yet the spirit of the Constitution have been complied with. Permit me, sir, to examine this principle of construction.
The Constitution says : "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes." But it does not say those taxes shall be uniform throughout States. Will any one under- take to say that Congress, under that clause, can impose a tax upon one State, from which another may be ex- empt ? No one, sir, will undertake to claim that power. Upon that same principle, then, Congress would not have
155
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
had the power to impose a duty upon the same article in one State, and have exempted another from its operation, even though the clause requiring them to be uniform had not been inserted. Then, sir, the wise men who framed our Constitution, either inserted that exemption clause without intending it to have meaning, or it meant much more than those constructionists are willing to allow. Had any of the distributive adjectives been used, (each, every, or either,) that clause of the Constitution might have borne the construction given. But it says, "all duties imposed," and without a violent perversion of the English language, must mean all. The word "uniform" is defined by the learned authors of our vocabularies as meaning "not variable," "not different," "conforming to one rule or mode," "having the same degree." Can, then, all duties be said to be uniform, when on the same kind of article, in one case a duty of five per cent., and in an- other a duty of forty per cent. is imposed ? Can all duties be said to be invariable, when on one article a per cent. is imposed upon a minimum valuation and a specific duty is imposed on another ? Can all duties be said not to be different, when a specific duty is imposed upon one arti- cle, and an ad valorem on another ? Can all duties in those cases be said to be conforming to one rule or mode, or as having the same degree ? Sir, it is beyond my com- prehension, how duties can be imposed upon the specific or minimum principle, and be made to conform to the requirements of the Constitution. Again, sir : the Con- stitution provides that Congress shall have power to col- lect excises, and that all those excises shall be uniform throughout the States.
Should Congress, under that power, impose an excise twice as high upon the manufacturers of cloth as should be imposed upon the manufacturers of iron, would any one undertake to justify the imposition of such an excise, upon the ground that the excise upon cloth was uniform
156
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
throughout the States as was also the excise upon iron ? I am much mistaken if such a construction would be sub- mitted to. I'am much mistaken if the manufacturers of cloths would not throw themselves upon the letter of the Constitution, which says all excises shall be uniform, and would claim that no excise burdens could be constitution- ally imposed upon them, higher than was imposed upon others in the community. Sir, if the letter of the Consti- tution had been adhered to upon these subjects, how much of wrong, that certain portions of our people have suffered, would have been obyiated. How much of heart- burning would have been prevented, that has already shaken our institutions to their centre. How much of those dissensions would have been avoided, which may yet work the ruin of our nation. Sir, this doctrine of un- iformity of duties is not new. It has at all times been entertained by some of the purest and ablest of our statesmen. The compromise act was the offspring of these principles. But, sir, it has been said that the com- promise act was a failure, because it did not provide a sufficiency of revenue. That failure, sir, was not in the principles of the act, but in those provisions of the act which left more than half the imports of the country free of duty. The general interests of the country were never more prosperous than under the operations of the com- promise act. To have increased the revenue, it would only have been necessary to have imposed the uniform duties upon the free list ; and instead of fifteen millions of dollars, over thirty millions would have been annually produced. I shall now claim to be indulged with looking at the policy of discriminating in duties to promote indi- vidual interests, upon principles of expediency. In con- nection with that policy it is contended, that unless our people are restrained by discriminating duties in their foreign intercourse, they will work our national ruin.
The time has been when the people of this country
157
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE
were thought to be capable of self-government ; when they were thought to be capable of dictating not only what our statute laws, but what our fundamental laws, should be. And shall it now be said, that they must be restrained in their choice of whom they shall buy and to whom they shall sell, and that, too, by arbitrary laws, justified only by the most violent principles of construc- tion?
The time has been when it was thought to be the work of wisdom to devise means to conduct our Government upon principles of economy. The time has been when it would have been considered a most happy and desirable consummation, if the operations of our Government could have been carried on without any considerable expendi- ture. But, sir, the advocates of discriminating in duties must consider such consummation to be the most disas- trous. For if we had but little expenditure, we should require but little of duties. And of course, if it is of great importance, when our expenditures are large, that a high system of discriminations are necessary, in order to save us from ruin, in raising the means to pay those expenses, what overwhelming ruin must be our fate if some system of legislation should be adopted to save us from those expenses ? It has been a proverb in England, that a na- tional debt is a national blessing. With some it must be a proverb here, that national extravagance is our national salvation. Consistent with their expressed views of pub- lic policy, do we not see the friends of the policy of dis- crimination resorting to the broadest principles of con- struction, and all other means, in order to enhance our Government expenditures? It is claimed that discimina- tions in duties must be made for the benefit of manufac- turers, in consequence of the higher rates of interest in this country, than is allowed on capital in Europe. Those discriminations are also claimed, in consequence of the higher price of labor that prevails in this country than is
38*
158
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
paid in Europe. That we may understand and appreci- ate the justice of these claims, I will refer to the statis- tics of the State of Massachusetts. In 1845, the labor of 128,013 men, women, and children, with a capital of $45,- 101,217, produced $87,924,083 worth of income. During the same year, the whole agricultural population, with a . capital amounting to the value of all the lands in the State, produced only the income of $12,667,625.
In agriculture, the yearly labor of one man produced one hundred and eighty-three dollars income.
In manufactures, the yearly labor of one person (aver- aged between men, women, and children) produced an in- come of seven hundred and fifty dollars each.
Agriculture required four hundred dollars capital to produce one hundred dollars income.
Manufactures required only fifty-two dollars of capi- tal to produce one hundred dollars income.
Agriculture required eighty dollars of labor to produce one hundred dollars of income.
Manufactures required only twenty-five dollars of labor to produce one hundred dollars of income.
In agriculture the interest at six per cent. on the capi- tal necessary in the production of one hundred dollars in- come, would have been twenty-four dollars ; whereas the interest on the capital necessary to produce that income in manufactures, would have been only three dollars twelve cents.
The tax, at the rate of fifty cents on the one hundred dollars on the same capital in agriculture, would have been two dollars ; whereas, in manufactures, it would have been only twenty-five cents.
To look, sir, at this subject abbreviated. On expense in labor, manufactures stands to agriculture as twenty- five dollars is to eighty dollars ; on capital, as fifty-two dollars is to four hundred dollars ; on interest, as three dollars twelve cents is to twenty-four dollars ; on taxes,
159
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
as twenty-five cents is to two dollars. And, yet, sir, this doctrine of discrimination proposes to tax the capital and labor of agriculture, for the benefit of the owners of capi- tal in manufactures. It is contended, sir, that to bestow special legislative favor to manufactures, will bestow special protection to labor in this country. This sugges- tion can be best understood by a reference to the financial report of the Secretary of the Treasury at the last session of Congress. Almost every answer of manufacturers from almost every State in the Union, in that report, tells us that improvements in machinery have reduced the ex- pense of manufacturing about thirty per cent. Almost all tell us that for the last thirty years the wages of labor have remained stationary. Wages were the same when duties were at 40, 70, or 100 per cent., that they were when only at 20 per cent. Wages had remained the same when improvements had reduced the expense of manufac- turing 30 per cent., with what they had been when man- ufacturing had been most expensive. Whatever changes had been made, they all admit that laborers never enjoyed the benefits of those changes, however favorable ; but that the benefits were monopolized and enjoyed exclusively by the owners of capital themselves.
Sir, the advocates of discrimination in duties contend that high duties do not increase the price of the article to the consumer. So said the authors of the act of 1842 ; and yet in that very act they provided to have the duties refunded to sugar refiners and to rum manufacturers. So said the advocates of that act at the last session of Con- gress ; and yet they almost unanimously voted to refund duties on railroad iron. Duties under that act have been refunded on over three millions of pounds of sugar, and over four millions of gallons of molasses, during the last year. And during the past few years, over three millions of dollars have been refunded on railroad iron. Sir, un- less on sugar, molasses, and iron, the price is increased
160
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
to the amount of duty imposed, a grosser act of legisla- tive injustice was never perpetrated than under the oper- ation of the laws refunding those duties.
But, sir, the consideration that is urged upon us with more earnestness than all others is, that discriminations for the benefit of manufacturers creates a home market for our agricultural productions. To a right understanding of this argument, we can again refer to the statistics of Massachusetts. In 1845, the manufactured products of Massachusetts amounted to $87,924,083. Discounting thirty-five per cent, (the average of duties by the act of 1842,) would give to those manufacturers a bonus, raised by a tax upon the people, of $22,795,133 annually. Dis- counting twenty-four per cent., (the average of duties by the act of 1846,) gives annually to those manufacturers a bonus of $17,017,565 Now, then, suppose the agricul- tural productions consumed in this country to be annually $800,000,000 ; suppose the population of Massachusetts to be one twenty-fifth of the whole, as it is nearly ; sup- pose one-third of that population to be employed in man- ufacturing :- then, sir, the manufacturing population would be one-eightieth of that of the United States, and may be expected to consume one-eightieth of those agri- cultural productions. Upon that basis of calculation the manufacturing population of Massachusetts would con- sume annually $10,000,000 worth of our products of agri- culture. That, sir, is the value of that home market. Under the policy recommended by gentlemen, we have paid over $22,000,000 annually, and shall still pay over $17,000,000 annually, for a market to consume annu- ally only $10,000,000 worth of products. I ask gen- tlemen to look at this view of the subject. If they call this calculation theorizing, I ask them how facts and fig- ures can ever be made to produce demonstration ? Upon this basis of calculation, we have been paying to the manufacturers of this country, under the name of pro-
161
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
tection, over $48,000,000 annually more than the whole amount of agricultural productions which they have or can consume. Is it suprising, then, sir, that under this system of creating home markets, in the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Hudson, ] agricul- ture has not retained its proportion to the growing popu- lation of the country ? Is it surprising that the agricul- tural population of New York has diminished within the last five years? Is it surprising that agricultural pro- ducts generally had depreciated in price over forty per cent. since 1841, or that the gross value of the agricultu- ral products of New York was worth many millions less in 1845 than they were in 1840? Is it surprising that the gross value of agricultural products had diminished in Massachusetts near four millions of dollars between 1841 and 1842, as the census shows? Is it surprising that nine millions of pounds of wool grown in New York was worth more, by $700,000, in 1840, than thirteen millions of pounds of wool is worth at the present prices ? Is it at all surprising that manufactures have advanced beyond the proportion of our growing population during this same time? Is it not surprising, sir, that the people of this country have so long tolerated a system so unequal, so oppressive, so unjust ?
In common with my brother farmers, I have felt the blighting influences of this policy. I have listened to their cunningly-devised fables and falsehoods, which have been resorted to to blind us to the causes which have robbed ns of the fruits of our toil, and pushed ns on the road to adversity. I have witnessed the violent struggles by which a modification of policy has been resisted. I have seen with what desperate energy the attempt has been made to retain upon us a policy of revenue more highly oppressive than was then existing in any nation on the face of the earth. I believe it is a desire to restore that policy, which is one of the strongest motives in op- 39
162
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
posing a duty upon tea and coffee. I believe the levying that duty for the purposes of the war will assist in pro- tecting us against the reestablishment of that or a similar policy. It is this conviction that has prompted me in go- ing more largely into this subject than I otherwise should have done.
Avarice, sir, was never satisfied by indulgence, nor am- bition surfeited by gratification. Those who have enjoyed contributions upon the people for the last quarter of a century, will not quietly submit to a deprivation of any of their spoils. Office-seekers and legislators will be found willing to make with them common cause. There will be 'an effort to put again upon us the yoke of 1842. The struggle must come. Whether at this session, the next, or after the nation has been convulsed at another election, I know not ; but the struggle will come. To the friends of justice, of the people's rights, of their country's good, we must look to save us again from the vortex of oppres- sion.
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.