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 20
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
But, sir, if the doctrine of special and partial legisla- tion is to be insisted upon-if the doctrine of legislative protection is to prevail in this country, then, certainly, its benefits should not be confined to the few, but should be directly for the benefit of the greater portion, if not for the whole of our population. No considerable interest should be left to the uncertain tenure of contingent, incidental consequences. Under this view of the case, the agricul- tural interest should be one specially to receive the direct benefits, by way of legislation. I will venture to suggest, then, the propriety of ascertaining the average export valuation on all the staple articles of agriculture, for the last ten years ; the the grain, flour, wool, provisions, &c., of the North ; the cotton, tobacco, rice, sugar, &c., of the South. And upon that average valution to give an ex- port bounty equal to one half of the average per cent. duty imposed upon imports. This bounty would be
163
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
special protection to agriculture, which gives employ- ment to three-fourths of our population. At the same time manufactures would enjoy the protection of the duties, and commerce would enjoy the increased exports and imports which a system of bounties may be presumed to create. Now, sir, what objection can be raised to this system of protection by the advocates of that doctrine ? It cannot be said to be new. I cannot claim the merit of originality in proposing it. We give to fishermen boun- ties, and why are the hardy sons of the ocean any more subjects of bounty than those of the field ? We give to rum makers and sugar refiners bounties, by way of re- funded duties ; why are not the producers of flour, meat, wool, and cotton, equally subjects of such bounty ? If it is called refunding duties on raw matierial, in one case ; in the other, if you please, call it refunding duties on the cloth, irou, sugar, molasses, salt, spices, &c., consumed by the cultivators of the soil. If the wealthy owners of rail- road stocks are deserving of the millions of bounties which they have received, why is not much more so that portion of our population whose sweat and toil procures for us the means of subsistence ? New York also sets us the example of giving bounties to the manufacturers of salt. But, sir, we have another example set us upon this subject, inviting our imitation ; an example hallowed by time, and recommended by long experiment. During the arbitrary reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts in England, agricultural exports were not only subject to duty, but the exporter was under the necessity of purchasing a license. But in 1689, when liberty had commenced to dawn upon the British empire, the laws requiring duties and licenses were repealed, and others passed, bestowing bounties upon the exportation of agricultural productions. In 1750, sixty-one years after the passage of those laws, we find that sixteen hundred thousand dollars was paid in one year, the bounties upon agricultural exports. I
164
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
believe that law now stands in force upon their statute- book, but for near half a century has been a dead letter, as their increased population has rendered their limited territory unequal to its required supplies.
Sir, no reason can be given in favor of protecting any interest in this country which would not apply in an emi- nent degree in favor of the extension of direct protection to agriculture. Should protection be given where capi- tal is required to be large in proportion to its income ? For that cause, agriculture requires it more than any other interest. Should protection be given where labor is most expensive ? It is most expensive in agriculture. Is it desirable to procure increased wages for laborers ? While in manufactures, whatever protection they may have enjoyed, the wages of laborers have remained sta- tionary, in agriculture, increased wages follow increased prices, as certainly as the muttering thunder follows the lightning's flash. Do we wish to be independent of other nations ? Do we wish more-do we wish other nations to be dependent upon us ? Then, instead of restricting, we ought to facilitate our intercourse with the whole commercial world. Adopt a policy such as I am now suggesting, and all nations will look to and depend upon us to supply their deficiencies. Our every variety of climate, our unequalled fertility of soil, our territory of almost limitless extent, would enable us, by proper legis- lative protection, to become the granary of the world. That protection, sir, should not only be in bounties be- stowed, bat exemption from unreasonable burdens im- posed for the benefit of others.
If an objection should be raised to the system I have proposed, in consequence of the effect it may have upon revenue, I answer, it is an experiment well worth the try- ing, to see whether the increased importations, conse- quent upon the facilities which bounties would bestow upon exports, would not actually increase the amount
165
DUTY ON TEA AND COFFEE.
of revenue available to the Government. But should it not be so increased ; should the amount of rev- enue over the bounties be only sufficient to pay the ordi- nary expenses of the Government, the great agricultural interest, embracing the largest portion of our population, and subject to pay the greatest proportion of our national expenditures, if favored with bounties, would not hesitate to have all extraordinary expenses paid by direct taxa- tion. More than this: agriculturists might discover it to be to their interest to have the whole government expeu- diture paid by taxation, and would be satisfied to have no more duties collected than were necessary to pay the bounties allowed. Manufacturers would soon discover that this system would be holding to their lips the cup they have so freely urged upon others. I say to the ad- vocates of protection, that my policy, if objectionable, is less so than theirs. Mine would confer direct benefits upon a large majority of the people ; theirs only upon a limited minority. If, however, this policy is objected to, then let this subject be met on common ground. Let the whole system of protection be abandoned; let the busi- ness of the country be governed by the laws of trade ; let agriculturists be freed from the oppressions and embar- rassments of partial legislation, and they will ask noth- ing for themselves. Give them but a fair field in the markets of the world, and they will never be the suppli- ants for legislative favor.
It is urged here, that our whole system of legislation has been characterized by extending protection to manu- factures. I ask gentlemen to look, and see whether a paragraph can be found upon our statute books in which any direct or even indirect provision has been made to benefit agriculture. Why this partiality then? Is not agriculture the first and most important interest in our country ? Is it not shown, that if any interest is desery- ing of or needing protection, that interest is the agricul- 39*
166
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
tural ? Then, sir, if any system of legislative protection is again introduced into our Halls of Legislation, the agriculturist should be the recipient. By so doing, we should wipe out a blemish that now characterizes the legislative history of our country.
THE COMING ISSUE.
A COMMUNICATION FROM MR. JOHN F. COLLIN, PUBLISHED IN THE HUDSON GAZETTE, JUNE 28TH, 1883.
The compromise act of 1850 affirming the first princi- ples of our government was the crowning glory of Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Douglass and their immortal associ- ates. That compromise continued in operation till 1860 when it was universally conceded that our government was the best that heaven ever blest a people with, and it was proverbial that the constitution upon which it was founded was wise above the age in which it was written. The only cloud upon us was the vile reciprocity act under which Canadian agricultural products were admitted into our markets free of duty in exchange for the free access of the people of New England to the Canadian fishing grounds. It is an official fact that the fish thus taken were exchanged in the West Indies for molasses to be distilled into rum to be used as the main spring to the African slave trade. Aside of that Canadian tonnage that of the United States employed in our commerce exceeded that of all other countries nearly four-fold. I have be- fore me the official report of 1857 in which the commer- cial tonnage of the United States was 4,580,651 tons, whereas that of all other countries except Canada was 1,385,520 tons. At the same time the products of agricul- ture exceeded that of all other industries by over $500,- 000,000. Then robustuous Democrats divided the Demo-
.
168
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
cratic party and Republicans got possession of the sword and purse of the government, although at the election they polled only about 1,800,000 votes out of over 4,000,- 000. In less than two months after being in possession of that sword and purse and in violation of all the pro- visions of the constitution they involved the country in the most lamentable civil war that ever disgraced human- ity. And with that sword and purse they have continued their control for over twenty years. The effect has been that by the official report of 1881, which I have before me, commerce in American ships for that year has been only 2,844,678 tons while in foreign ships it has been 11,569,- 679 tons, or five foreign to one American. And the pro- ducts of the manufacturers are two fold greater than those of the farmers and the annual expenses of the gov- ernment have been raised from $60,000,000 to over $400,- 000,000, and nine-tenths of the burden of that expenditure has been imposed upon agriculture. The policy that has produced these effects are still favored by Republicans and its perpetuity they declare to be their great political issue in the future. They must have a protective tariff of fifty per cent. for the protection of their labor when twenty-five per cent. constitutes more than all the labor invested in their manufactured productions. They must have that protective tariff though it has already crushed the life out of our commerce in American ships and is rapidly crushing the life out of United States agriculture, and has made half the wealth of the people consist of debts on the stocks of corporations, and has enabled them to usurp of the public domain a quantity exceeding that of the states at the formation of the Union, and has stirred up hatred between the states and has converted the Union into a collection of states held together by force. Those Republicans receiving aid and comfort from a multitude of side issues and robustous Democrats have been now claiming that the constitution was a cheat
169
THE COMING ISSUE.
and that by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus at his own volition the President becomes an absolute monarch. It certainly was upon that assumption that they com- menced the civil war. Having been shown by the 18th clause of section 8th, of article 1st of the constitution that the President possesses no such prerogative till it should be specially conferred upon him by Congress, they are now undertaking to defend their policy under the Ist clause of that section which reads : "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." Taxes are upon the property of the people of the United States. Excises are upon the productions of the people of the United States, upon both of which the government has concurrent jurisdiction with the states. Duties and im- posts are taxes upon imported productions over which the government has sovereign control, and for the foster- ing and control of which was almost the exclusive object for the establishment of the government. Now is it an- swering the objects of that government to destroy that commerce in American ships by usurping sovereign power over the property and productions of the people of the States, by interfering with the industry of the people through the operations of a protective tariff? Is the des- truction of that commerce in American ships in accord- ance with the principles of established justice which was one of the declared objects of the Constitution? Is the heaping destructive burdens upon commerce and agricul- ture for the benefit of manufacturers acting to promote the general welfare ? Is the heaping such burdens upon commerce and agriculture, in which three-fourths of the people are employed, giving protection to the industry of the country? While considering these questions it must be borne in mind that the treatment of those manufactur- ing laborers have been such under the full influence of
40
170
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
that protective policy as to make the members of a Mas- sachusetts official bureau report that they blushed for their native State. Yet the continuance of this protec- tive tariff policy is to be the great future political issue in our country. Millions of stolen wealth, through a cor- rupted ballot box, will be used to continue that policy. If that shall become the established policy of the country the people will be in a worse condition than African slavery. The late Chinese law will be repealed and the stolen public domain and our work shops will be filled with Asiatics, under the control of men already educated for that purpose. The ballot box and bayonet will be in their hands and that of the millions of Africans already brought into our country under the influence of Boston rum. If the people would avoid such consequences they must shut their eyes to all the side issues and turn their backs upon robustuous Democrats, and with an eye single to that object go for a policy that shall confine the gov- ernment to its prerogative over commerce and diplomacy, and not have commerce taxed for anything except its or- dinary support, and have sovereignty recognized in the states over all their civil and industrial interests, and all the debts and expenses of the government, over its ordi- nary support, be imposed upon property, requiring bond holders and corporations to bear their due proportion.
It was for the expressed purpose of avoiding having commerce burdened to its injury that concurrent jurisdic- tion with the State was conferred upon Congress to tax the property of people of the States, and to impose an ex- cise upon their productions. A protective tariff lays the foundation of all the differences between Democracy and Republicanism.
Democracy is in favor of cultivating friendly relations with commercial nations. Republicans are in favor of provoking them into retaliations. Democrats favor culti- vating friendly relations between States. Republicans
171
THE COMING ISSUE.
favor unfriendly relations by taxing one for the benefit of another. Democrats favor cultivating favorable relations between industrial interests. Republicans favor foment- ing hatred by taxing one for the benefit of the other. Democrats favor the establishment of justice among all industrial interests. Republicans favor taxing certain in- terests for the benefit of others. Democrats favor the promotion of the general welfare. Republicans favor the promotion of certain interests by ruining others. Demo- crats favor a protection of all the industrial interests, in- cluding commerce, agriculture and manufactures. Repub- licans favors a protection of manufactures at the expense of commerce and agriculture. Democrats favor a uni- form tax upon all property. Republicans favor the im- position of nine-tenths of taxation upon agriculture. Democrats are opposed to national debts. Republicans consider national debts a national blessing. Democrats honored Lord Pitt and called him a patriot for declaring in Parliament that he rejoiced that the people of America resisted in arms the encroachment of the crown upon their liberties. Republicans expelled Vallandingham from Congress and banished him from the country and called him a copperhead for similar expressions. In fine Democrats are in favor of a Union of the States for the promotion of their commercial intercourse with foreign nations and one another. Republicans favor a collection of the States by force for the purpose of sacrificing that commerce to benefit a local interest.
GOVERNMENT PREROGATIVES.
A COMMUNICATION FROM MR. JOHN F. COLLIN, PUBLISHED IN THE HUDSON GAZETTE, JULY 5TH, 1883.
That portion of the Republican party that have been pleased to call our Federal Constitution "a covenant with hell," and our flag "hate's polluted rag," have done so because that Constitution favored African slavery and they have imputed to that slavery the cause of all the great evils that have been visited upon our country. I think I have shown conclusively that Massachusetts has been the sole author of that slavery. Some of the great leaders of the Republican party have imputed to the doc- trine of states's rights of state sovereignty the cause of all the greatest evils that have been visited upon our country. I think I have shown conclusively that the doctrine of state sovereignty was the first and most im- portant principle in the Constitution, and that it was the first and most important provision in the articles of the confederation, and had been guaranteed by the Crown, and in the language of Alexander Hamilton, it was a prin- ciple that "could not be lost till the whole American peo- ple were robbed of their liberties." A protective tariff is now the one great idea of Republicanism, in which un- der a different name they are sustained by Robustuous Democrats. I think I have shown conclusively that that policy violates every object for which the Constitution was made and the Union was formed. These showings
173
GOVERNMENT PREROGATIVES.
have excited against me furious prejudices and "terrible consequences" to myself have been pointed out to me if I shall persist in this opposition to Republicanism.
My attention has been called to another Republican idea in which it is claimed that the President has the constitutional prerogative of suspending at his own good pleasure the writ of habeas corpus, which would leave him in the prosession of arbitrary power, as was done under the administration of Abraham Lincoln when Valanding- ham was banished from his country for a mere expres- sion of opinion and thousands were imprisoned for the same cause, and I for the same cause might be compelled to spend my few remaining days in a dungeon. The fear of such consequences, however, will not deter me from giving my opinions upon these subjects. The doctrine that commerce and diplomacy are the sole constitutional sovereign prerogatives of our government is sufficiently established, not only by the letter of the Constitution but by our general national history, though that principle has been subject to occasional violations causing patriotic men to tremble through fear that we were in danger of the consequences predicted by Alexander Hamilton. Commerce through duties imposed upon imports was the only source of revenue provided for the support of that government in its executive, legislative, judicial, and diplomatie departments. For services that the govern- ment might render the states it had concurrent jurisdic- tion with the states to tax the property of the people and to impose an excise upon their productions in a way not to do violence to the principles of justice and the gen- eral welfare. The property upon which those taxes and excises were to be imposed concurrent with the states, now amounts to over $40,000,000,000, including bonds and the watered stocks of corporations. To wipe out the national and other debts contracted for the benefit of the states and all other necessary expenses, would require a
40*
174
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
tax of less than three mills on the dollar, a mere bagatelle to the burdens now borne under the financial policy of Republicanism.
The states under their sovereign prerogative have no right to tax commerce, under any circumstances, for their civil and diplomatic interests, and as a consequence the general government has no right to tax commerce for ser- vices rendered the states in either war or peace. Let this policy be adopted, and the government would immedi- ately become the protector instead of the destroyer of our commerce, and we should no longer have occasion to pay $140,000,000 annually to foreigners to do our commerce for us, and industry would become the true and only source of individual wealth, and strict economy would become the natural object of every man, and we should hear no more howlings for civil service reform.
THE PLAIN FACTS.
A COMMUNICATION FROM MR. JOHN F. COLLIN, PUBLISHED IN THE HUDSON GAZETTE, AUGUST 2ND, 1883.
Massachusetts politicians founded the Republican party. It was conceived in 1855 and organized in 1856 on a huge corruption fund through which the New York Tribune was endowed with a capital of $800,000, its then editors receiving the annual salary of $10,000 each. The congressional examination into the operations of the Mid- dlesex Mills Company exposed the fact that congressmen and editors were bribed by that organization. One wit- ness submitted to imprisonment rather than disclose the corruptions within his knowledge. When through its corruptions that party got possession of the sword and purse of the nation it immediately plunged the states into the civil war. The executive head of the government usurped the prerogative of suspending the writ of habeas corpus and ordering the raising of large armies and invad- ing a peaceful state, and prohibiting the liberty of the press and speech even upon the floor of Congress. Their excuse for doing so was the existence of slavery in the country, and to put down what they were pleased to call the pernicious doctrine of states rights. That slavery, which they used as their excuse, had been produced through one branch of the most cherished interest of Massachusetts, as commercial records show. Massachu- setts statesmen had got it provided for in the Federal Con-
176
HILLSDALE HISTORY.
stitution, and President Garfield and President Lincoln both publicly admitted that the northern people were responsible for the existence of slavery in the country. For the opinion of Mr. Lincoln upon that subject, refer- ence may be had to page 617 of the 2d Vol. of Alexander H. Stephens' History of the Civil War. The opinion of Mr. Garfield was expressed in his speech at Cambridge, Ohio, August 27th, 1879.
Slavery having been recognized in the constitution, and State sovereignty having been the most cherished prin- ciple in the articles of the confederation, and in the Con- stitution, and in the action of the government during its whole history, the civil war, by Republican admission, was revolutionary on the part of the government. It was a wicked attempt to destroy the Federal Constitution, In the language of Alexander Hamilton, it was a wicked at- tempt to deprive the whole American people of their liberties. During President Buchanan's administration, Edwin M. Stanton gave strongest expressions against the whole Republican policy, but when made the Secretary of War by the Republican administration he put on the robustnous Democratic mantle, and adopted the most ex- treme revolutionary Republican principles. Rather than recognize the sovereignty of States by sending a flag of truce, he allowed twenty thousand killed and wounded soldiers to lay for four long days and nights upon the battle field of Manassas, the dead to rot and the wounded to suffer, although philanthropie men like Bishop Clark, of Rhode Island, were begging that relief might be sent to them. When thirty thousand northern soldiers were suf- fering from the diseases of the climate at Andersonville, and many comforts and necessaries which the people of the South did not have the means to grant, the Secretary of War refused to receive a commissioner sent to negoti- ate for their relief. When one of those prisoners was sent to so negotiate, Secretary Stanton refused to ex-
177
GOVERNMENT PREROGATIVES.
change. He refused to send physicians with the neces- sary remedies, which the Southern people, by the block- ade, were deprived of, though the most solemn pledges were given that those physicians with their remedies, should be faithfully protected. He refused to send ships to Savannah to receive those prisoners without exchange, and subsequently allowed the keeper of that prison to be hung, because of the sufferings of those prisoners, when there is the most ample proof that the keeper of that prison did all that human effort could accomplish for their relief. When the war had closed Secretary Stanton caused Alexander H. Stephens to be arrested in his peaceful home to be confined in a dungeon in Fort Warren beneath the surface of the ground, as ap- pears on the 660th page of vol. 2d of his History. He states that if he had not been removed he would have soon died. Dr. Seaverns, the surgeon, vainly advised his removal. At last Senator Henry Wilson, of Massachu- setts, went specially to Washington and procured an or- der under the hands of President Johnson for his removal, though Secretary Stanton would not give his consent to the last.
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.