SENATE.]

ary war.

Commerce was broken up, and the supplies so utterly failed that the privation and distress was great, as the journal of the Congress during that period will prove.

[FEB. 23, 1837.

er fact to show that it was out of the reach of the poor, who were obliged to yield to the distressing privation. In July, 1775, Congress raised a committee of thirteen, "to inquire into the easiest and cheapest method of making salt in the colonies."

In December, 1775, "Resolved, That as the importation of any universally necessary commodity, and the exportation of our produce to purchase the same, must give a proportionally greater opportunity to our enemies of making depredations on the property of the inhabitants of these colonies, and of occasionally distressing them by intercepting such commodities, it is earnestly recommended to the several assemblies or conventions immediately to promote, by sufficient public encouragements, the making salt in their respective colonies."

June 3, 1777,"Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed, to devise ways and means for supplying the United States with salt."

June 13, 1777, "Resolved, That it be recommended to the several States to offer such liberal encouragement to persons importing salt as they shall judge will be effectual," &c.

"That it be recommended to the several States to erect and encourage, in the most liberal and effectual manner, proper works for the making of salt."

These are some of the resolves of that distinguished body, which indicate the grievous scarcity of that article, and the privation and suffering both in and out of the army in consequence of it.

In response to this public demand, he said he was informed that the works upon Cape Cod, in Massachusetts, were commenced, and have been continued from thence down to this time. They, therefore, had this early origin in an appeal to the patriotic to meliorate the sufferings of their countrymen.

When the Federal Government went into operation, in 1789, under the constitution, the first work of Congress, after providing the forms of the oaths necessary to organization, was to pass that memorable act with this preamble: "Whereas it is necessary, for the support of Government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares, and merchandise imported: Be it enacted," &c. This act imposed a duty on salt of six cents a bushel. The duty, therefore, which the Senator from from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] has condemned as odious, and assigned it to the administration of Mr. Adams, as if that cast upon it additional infamy, was the first act of the first Congress under George Washington. In 1790 it was raised to twelve cents, and in 1797 to twenty cents. Odious as it was represented to be, it was continued until 1807, the last year of Mr. Jefferson's administration, when it was all removed, and salt was imported free of duty. Twentyfive years had then elapsed since the revolutionary war, and the privations and distress of that period had faded out of the memories of men; and with this oblivion of the past they forgot the occasion which had excited the public to encourage home production. The country passed on till 1813, when the duty of twenty cents a bushel was restored, and so continued till 1830. The embargo, the non-intercourse acts, and the late war, brought a new pressure upon the country, and fresh suffering, which again reminded the people that salt was an article indispensable to their comfort, and that the supplies by commerce were uncertain and liable to

brought them back to the policy of the Revolution; consequently, when the double duties after the war were repealed, that upon salt was left in full force, doubtless to encourage the production.

Fifteen years elapsed, scarcity and high prices were again forgotten, and the necessity of domestic production was again overwhelmed by the very argument used to enforce its expediency. The manufacture was urged, because salt was necessary to all, under all circumstances, and stood upon the same footing as lead, powder, ordnance, arms, and all things necessary to the defence of the country. These, it was said, we should produce ourselves, and rest our dependence upon no foreign nation for supply, as it would be manifestly unwise to trust to the uncertain resources of commerce for the means to defend our country against invasion. Equally unwise was it considered to rely upon a source which had, and doubtless would again, fail us, when commerce should be interrupted from any cause, for an article so necessary as salt. While, therefore, the duty was imposed because the article was one of prime necessity, it was repealed, in part, in 1830, for precisely the same reason. It was then urged, as it now is, that, because all must use it, it ought not to be taxed, but to come in free, though it should destroy the manufactures which had been reared up at a great outlay of capital, and in obedience to the urgent call of the Government itself. The act of 1830 reduced the duty five cents in that year, and five cents in the succeeding year, bring. ing it down to ten cents, where it stood when the act of 1833 passed, and then it fell under the reducing process of that act. The duty is now eight cents, and next December will fall to seven and a very small fraction.

It

Such is the history of legislation here upon salt. proves conclusively that the manufacture is of long standing, and has had the countenance of the Government as deserving protection.

He would now prove its magnitude, as far as he could, by such evidence as he could find on the files here; for he had had no opportunity to hear from those interested, who were at work peaceably at home, and unconscious of the efforts suddenly made here to overthrow them.

The consumption of the country in 1831 was ascertained to be about 10,000,000 bushels, five and a half of which were imported, and the residue, four and a half, produced. The consumption now must be nearly, if not quite, 12,000,000; but the imports for the year ending September, 1835, rise a little above 5,000,000, and, consequently, the domestic production is equal to about 7,000,000 bushels. The capital in 1831 was estimated at about $8,000,000; and, as the production has nearly doubled, the capital now employed doubtless equals $10,000,000 or $12,000,000. The chairman of the committee estimates the duty at 80 per cent. In this I think he is mistaken, as it is manifestly less; but this is not material, as it is admitted on all hands to be more than 20 per cent., and is therefore strictly embraced as a protected article by the terms of the compromise act. And the question is, shall it be abandoned? Is it the purpose of those who go for this measure to disregard that act? If so, then we understand your policy, and, for one, I am happy to see it disclosed.

But is the country prepared for this step? The idea has gone extensively abroad that the compromise act was to be regarded as disposing of these matters for some years to come. The President, in his message,

and the Secretary of the Treasury, in his annual report, have both so viewed the matter, and so proclaimed to the nation. The public is therefore at this moment reposing in tranquillity, not anticipating this action, and not prepared to meet it. Is it just, under these circumstances, to affect deeply an interest which has been maturing for more than half a century, and now affords you the best article of the kind in the country? Shall the people engaged in this business be condemned unheard? Will you not let them have an opportunity to prove that they are entitled to your forbearance? I (said be) ask it in their behalf, and, in fairness, it ought to be extended them. But, reasonable as this request is, I foresee that it will be overruled; and this measure will go through this body. It requires no spirit of prophecy to foretell that an important consequence will follow it. The repeal of the law giving a bounty to those engaged in the cod fishery will follow. This is an old policy, almost coeval with the Government; but it stands on two foundations-on two legs-and, if you cut away one, the superstructure will fall. It rests on the desire of this Government to create a nursery of seamen, by encouraging them to pursue the fishery; and the bounty is further justified, on the ground that the duty on salt ought to be reimbursed.

The manufacture of salt and the cod fishery are carried on by the same population, and at the same ports and places; not that the same individuals are engaged in both branches, but having a soil naturally unproductive, they draw their living from the resources of the sea. It is, as I am informed, the business upon which many mariners who have spent the most vigorous period of their lives in hard and perilous service retire, and employ their capital, to enable them to live comfortably.

Now, sir, I have seen enough of things here to satisfy my mind that, if the duty on salt is taken away, the bounty will follow; for those who have no sympathy with the fishermen will claim this as a matter of right.

Such, sir, is the selfishness of our natures, that, when we are interested to forget the gallant deeds, the heroic achievements, the privations and sufferings, of those who have saved the country from dishonor, and won for it an imperishable name, are obliterated from the mind. Why do you wish for seamen? Why desire to increase their number? Because, in the hour of national peril, they stand on the frontier, and interpose their shield between us and the conflict. They are a living wall along the Atlantic, behind which we take shelter. On them it has been our policy to rely; to them we confide our honor, and at no time have they abused the great trust. Must we break down this policy? Has the period arrived when the people are so imbued with the spirit of avarice, that we grudge this little pittance to the gallant tars of our country? You have taken from them all the Little navigating privileges which they had. You have narrowed, by the last treaty, their fishing ground; and this, and this alone, remains to them. If it must be sacrificed also, be it so. Go on with your policy; take away this 250,000 dollars, or whatever the sum is; take it from the sailors, and give it to your ostentatious fleet, fitting out to explore unknown regions; take the bread from them, and bestow it upon those who are sent out in pursuit of glory! And, while you do this, to make your injustice the more manifest, carry your land bill through the other House, and bestow upon favored individuals your public lands, worth three or four hundred millions of dollars. Do it, and, unjust and ungenerous as it is, the lofty-spirited sailor will scorn to entreat any favor at your hands. He will leave this to those who have smoother tongues and more pliant knees.

But, whatever you do, do not invoke the interests of the poor to aid your course or to justify your measures. The poor desire no such measures, for they have no VOL. XIII.-57

[SENATE.

such contemptible spirit. Their sympathies are all with the sailor; they glory in his generous spirit, his noble achievements, his patriotic devotion, his disinterested benevolence, his lofty American character; for the sailor is poor, and labors for the bread he eats. The poor demand no sacrifice of his rights in their name or for their benefit. The poor only ask of you that you would pursue towards them an American policy-a policy which will give them good wages for their labor-and they will take care of themselves. They entreat of you not to degrade them into the deplorable condition of the miserable population of foreign countries, by reducing their wages to the same standard. Can any truth be more apparent than that, where wages are lowest, there is the most poverty and there the most suffering? The whole history of man proves this. What makes the condition of the laborer so eminently prosperous here? How is it that he enjoys not only great physical but moral comforts and blessings, to an extent surpassing that of the laborer in any other country whatever? It is because he is better paid. Now, sir, if you would degrade this population, if you would assimilate it to that of Ireland, then reduce its wages to the same standard, and you will accomplish your object. Break down the business in which it is employed, by subjecting it to direct competition with foreign pauperism; lessen the demand for labor, by introducing foreign productions instead of our own, and like causes will produce like effects. You will then have as poor and wretched a population as that against which it will, in such circumstances, contend for bread. But I will not here pursue the subject. The laborers, I trust, know their interests, and will take care of them. They shall, at all times, have my most hearty co-operation.

But what is this boon which the Senator from Missouri proposes to give to the poor, at the expense of the sailor? The whole revenue derived from salt is rather less than half a million of dollars. Now, divide this among the whole population of the country, rich and poor, equally, and what is it, if every soul should pay an equal sum? Less than three cents a head. And does he seriously believe the poor to be so selfish as to desire this, when such a result is to follow? If he thinks the poor are mean-spirited or avaricious, he mistakes their character: they are not to be tempted to be instrumental in perpetrating a wrong, under such a delusion as this. He mistakes their character and sentiments, and does them great injustice. They ask no such favors, and are the advocates of no such measures. Nothing can be further removed from my views of a wise policy than to tax the poor. I desire no such thing, and they shall have every effort of mine to relieve them from all burdens, as far as it lies in my power. But I would not take from them an ounce, to lay upon them the greater weight of a pound. I would not relieve them from an annual tax of three or four cents, and thereby introduce a policy that would soon call for the sacrifice of half their earnings. I can have no desire but that of their prosperity; no interest that is not theirs also. If they suffer, I must suffer with them. If they prosper, I may hope to participate in it; for a common prosperity is felt by all the com munity.

If this sacrifice must be made, forbear, I entreat you, to wrong the poor so much as to do it in their name. Strike at the protection of the salt works; take away the bounty on the fisheries, if your policy requires it; leave no proofs behind you that you respect the character or the occupation of the sailor; and still he has a manly spirit that will triumph over it all; he will live without it; and, I doubt not, the patriotic ardor of his honest heart will remain unquenched.

But this is not the only thing this bill aims at, as I stated yesterday, when I moved to strike from it olive oil.

acts a toll upon all foreign salt, which so entirely prohibits it from entering the country that it is utterly excluded; and New York secures to her works not only a complete monopoly of the market of her great interior West, but of the vast country on the lakes, extending thousands of miles. If this information, which I derive from sources that may be relied on, is incorrect, the Senator from that State can inform the Senate. This monopoly is so exclusive, that the State levies an excise of six cents a bushel on the manufactured article at her own works, and puts the money into her treasury. This bill does not, therefore, touch the works of New York, or affect the interest of her citizens in the slightest degree. She can, therefore, very well afford to make such sacrifices, in which she gets commendation for her magnanimity, while we are the victims. The Senate and the country will now understand how to appreciate this magnanimity.

The Senator from Missouri has offered another reason in support of this measure, which I will also notice, for its singular character. He says the business is in the hands of regraters, a term, though not unknown, yet nearly so in commerce. Regraters are traders, persons who buy and sell; and the Senator thinks this would be broken | up if the duty should be repealed. I know not what his expectations are, nor what his ideas in regard to trade are, but he must have come near to the conclusion that it is criminal to buy and sell. What does the Senator desire? What does he aim at? Are people to be deprived of the liberty of traffic? Must they come here, and, bowing themselves down, humbly ask permission to do ordinary business? If a man is engaged in the common pursuits of life, is he to be denounced and condemned, loaded with opprobrious epithets, and held up to scorn? Is it not one of the first and highest principles of public liberty, that all persons may engage in lawful pursuits? Where is this intermeddling with private concerns to end? Is this Government to pry into individual concerns, to ascertain how much and in what way men do business? To give this man permission to go on, that to enlarge, and order another to diminish? No people of spirit could for a moment bear this arbitrary interfer

ence.

But suppose it is true that there are regraters, specu lators who buy and sell, and the public are craftily played upon by their artful contrivances, how will removing the duty remedy this evil? Will the power of regrating be taken away or impaired? What is to hinder their operating upon salt free of duty as effectually as upon that subject to duty' Let the Senator assign a reason if he can. The proposition shows at once that none can be assigned. This remedy for such an evil may therefore be set down as extraordinary.

Again: that Senator has taken much pains to speak of the low price of salt in foreign countries, showing that it may be purchased in some places at three cents a bushel. But, while he stated this, be omitted to state another fact, that we import no salt, or substantially none, that costs so small a sum. The tables of imports which lie before me settle this matter. The importation of 1835 may be taken as a sample of all other periods. The amount was 5,375,000 bushels; of this, 3,800,000 came from England and her dependencies; of the remaining million and a half, about one million from Portugal. By far the larger portion of salt comes direct from Liverpool, and is estimated to cost there, in the document before me from the Treasury, fifteen cents. It is, as every body knows, an inferior article to the salt of Cape Cod, which is made by solar evaporation. The reason of this is manifest. Our great exporting trade goes to England, and the homeward freights are comparatively cheap, and the price of salt will always depend much upon the activity of that trade, and the consequent occasions vessels have

[SENATE.

for ballast or homeward cargoes. The statement of the Senator, therefore, if taken without explanation or qual ification, would mislead the public mind.

Sir, twelve cents of the duty has been removed, and although the last three years have been very great exporting years, and consequently very favorable to a strong reduction of price, yet no reduction has been experienced, approaching to the predictions made when the law of 1830 was passed. This has probably served to perplex the Senator. If this bill should affect, as it probably will, the manufacture here injuriously, the trade will only be more fluctuating than it has been, while little or nothing will be gained in the average price.

I have, sir, felt it to be my duty to say thus much in vindication of the interests of a portion of my constituents, and of the principles which guide me in voting here. And I repeat that I am anxiously desirous to throw no unnecessary obstacle in the way of this bill. I approve of nearly the whole of it, and hope it will take a form that I can vote for it. I cannot, however, be reconciled to an act which selects our interests, and especially our navigation, for experiments. Let us have equal and exact justice, and we are content; for we ask no local or special privileges. If I do not mistake the facts, I think I have proved all I proposed to establish; and with this vindication of our rights I leave the matter to the judgment of the Senate.

Mr. BENTON rose, and went into an argument at some length in reply, to prove that the bounty on the cod fishery rested wholly on the duty upon salt, and that there would be no ground for continuing it after the duty was repealed.

Mr. DAVIS observed that he was gratified with the frankness of the Senator, for some discredited him when he said the repeal of the bounty law would follow this act. He thought he did not misunderstand the hints which were thrown out, and he now had the best evidence that he did not. He would, however, on a proper occasion, show that the bounty was for other purposes besides reimbursing the duty on salt. He could establish this, but he feared it would avail the fishermen nothing. Mr. CALHOUN rose and addressed the Senate as follows:

The annunciation by the chairman of the Committee on Finance, that this bill was framed and introduced on the assumption that the act of 1833 was no longer to be respected, gave to it an importance which demanded the most serious consideration. That act closed the tariff controversy between the North and the South; and the question now presented is, shall it again be opened? Shall we reopen a controversy which, during the long period from 1821 to 1833, agitated the country, governed its legislation, controlled the presidential elections, and finally shook its institutions to the centre? Shall we of the South, in particular, assent to open this formidable controversy--we who are, on this subject, in a permanent minority? Shall we agree to surrender our share of interest in the act of 1833--an act which has already repealed from twenty to twenty-five millions of duties annu. ally, and which, if left undisturbed, will in a few years take off ten more, and reduce the duties to the constitutional and legitimate wants of the Government? Will we agree to surrender all of these advantages, which were extorted from the adverse interest at the hazard of civil conflict, and take our chance in the renewed conflicts which must follow, if the controversy be again opened? This the chairman of the Committee on Finance asks you to do; and what is the compensation he holds out to you for such great sacrifices?

It

The whole may be summed up in the repeal of the duty on sait, amounting annually to about $550,000. is true, this bill goes further, and provides for a reduc