SENATE.] Reduction of the Tariff. compromise disturbed, and the question of the tariff again set afloat. He was well assured that if that question should now be opened, no Executive whatever would be strong enough to resist the tide of interest which would at once set in. Even the powerful man who now filled the executive chair had not resisted and dare not resist it; and dare, then, his successor? Whatever might be his disposition to do so, it was not in his power. Was it not plain? The Executive could not, for his life, make the vote on any one article in this bill a party vote. Gentlemen were still found voting according to the interests of their own constituents; and so they must continue to vote. Rather than trust executive pledges, whatever might be the executive kindness towards the South, he was for adhering to the compromise. The longer the country reposed under it, the stronger would be its bonds of security and peace. The public mind had now conformed itself to the arrangement. The community was satisfied, and the country, so far as this interest was concerned, was tranquil and prosperous. As a Southern man, he felt bound to adhere to a present and a certain good, in preference to trusting to an uncertain future gain. In the mean time he should be happy to hear the opinion of the chairman of the Committee on Finance [Mr. WRIGHT] on these two points: first, wheth er he considered the Senate as bound by the compromise law; and, second, whether a leading gentleman from New York was tariff or anti-tariff. In relation to this particular duty on salt, Mr. P. was in possession of sources of knowledge so intimate as would prevent him from voting on the question. The Senator from New York certainly could not have selected a stronger case to illustrate the impropriety of the tariff law than this very duty on salt. The whole duty was wrong in principle, and abominable in fact. In 1830 it enjoyed in the interior of the country a protection of two hundred per cent., besides all the natural protection arising from its weight and bulk. Yet he knew that even round about the establishment where the salt was made in immense quantities, this enormous duty was rendered popular by the wealth and influence of those who owned the manufactory; and there were no more decided partisans of the tariff system than the poor class of inhabitants in that region on whom this enormous duty was levied. The same influence was exerted in the halls of Congress; and never had he been so profoundly taught the danger of the tariff policy as he had by witnessing its results in relation to this tax upon salt. Salt was selling at a dollar a bushel; the duty upon it was 20 cents, and the poorest people were paying this duty, and petitioning Congress that it might not be taken off. It was a tax which had renewed the virtue (of course he meant politically) of the Senator from New York, and of the forty New York delegates in the other House. The General Government reduced the duty to 10 cents, and the patriotic State of New York to 6 cents, making the existing duty 16 cents per bushel. The liberality of the honorable Senator was most conspicuous in moving to abolish this duty. Mr. P. was not quite so sure of the magnanimity of the forty Representatives in the other House; it might turn out that twenty of them would be found on one side, and twenty on the other; and so New York might decide upon the tariff, unless her Senators were called to vote by a decision of their State Legisla [FEB. 24, 1837. the tax upon salt in this predicament. The duty of 20 cents had been reduced to 15, and by a second reduction had come down to 10, and at that point it stood when the compromise bill was introduced. The operation of the compromise law itself had further reduced the duty about three tenths, so that at the present time salt paid a duty of 7 or 8 cents, and by the year 1842 this would be further diminished to 3 or 4 cents. Mr. P. stated these facts from an accurate knowledge of the details of the subject; but though he stated them for the informa tion of the Senate, and, being personally interested, should not vote upon the question, he was decidedly opposed to touching the compromise. Mr. DAVIS here stating it was his desire to submit a few remarks on this subject, but feeling unwilling to commence them at so late an hour, the Senate, on his motion, adjourned. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24. The Senate having resumed the consideration of the I feel it my duty, on this occasion, to say a few words in reply to some remarks which have fallen from gentlemen on the other side, and which seemed to me to be intended personally for myself and my colleague, as representing one of the Eastern States of this Union. My colleague is abundantly able to answer for himself, and will, no doubt, do so in due time. This discussion has taken a wide range, and it has been thought worth while to open the history of the tariff act of 1828. Many of us were witnesses of the transactions referred to; and I do not regret that some time has been occupied on that subject, as it may be a means of sending forth to the country a representation of some affairs not remarkably well understood. We of the North did not very well know how to account for it, when we saw you, sir, [Mr. KING, of Alabama, who was in the chair,] and other Southern gentlemen, voting to keep up heavy protecting duties, while at the same time you inveighed with so much severity against the whole protective policy. We were aware that there was some key to the ap parent enigma, and now we have had the whole secret fully unfolded. We could not, indeed, be so stupid as not to comprehend the general tenor of the act of 1828. What was the origin of that act? In 1827, those who were engaged in the woollens interest felt themselves aggrieved that the protective privileges secured to them under the act of 1824 had been impaired by the legisla tion of Great Britain; and they came to Congress, asking the enactment of such a law as should restore them to the same footing as they had enjoyed under the act of 1824. No action was had at that time, but their application was renewed in 1828; and out of these circumstances grew the famous act which has not unfrequently been denominated a bill of abominations. I do not know who first christened it by this name. I am not personally answerable, although I do not think the name was very much misapplied. The introduction of the bill occasioned a long discussion. Instead of giving the woollens interest & little aid, it was found that the Committee on Manufac He believed that on a former occasion the Sena- tures bad introduced into the bill almost every thing. tors from New York amicably divided, and thus kept the There was a heavy protecting duty on hemp, which noState safe, when in 1832 their State spoke, and instruct- body asked for; duties on duck, on iron, on spirits; aled them how to vote; and it was possible that the hon- though no petition had been presented calling for any orable Senator, who had proposed the abolition of this one of them. These, and a number more, were gratuiduty on salt, might, when the moment for voting arri-tously put into the bill; but when we come to look for ved, pull out of his pocket the instructions of his Legis what was done for the woollens interest, we find nothing lature, and, in the face of all his own speeches, might We asked for bread, and you gave us a stone. vote against his motion. The compromise act had found A bigh duty, it is true, was imposed on foreign woollens, ture. at all. but a proportional duty was laid upon wool, which completely annulled the benefit to the manufacturer. The bill was made to respond to other matters, entirely foreign from its professed object. We are not so ignorant as not to know that there were mixed considerations of policy, and various interests concerned, in a measure so complicated in its character. When we saw Southern members voting to keep up high duties on iron, and sail cloth, and hemp, we thought there was some hidden meaning which prompted such a course. Now, as I before observed, we have the full interpretation. The policy of the South has been avowed, and we find that the object was to make the bill so very bad as to drive those who had asked for protection to vote against it. But when it came to the final vote, many of those who had most vehemently opposed the bill suddenly turned about, and voted in its favor. This I could not do. So I, for one, followed exactly the course which, as it now appears, it was designed I should. I voted against the bill. It passed, however, to the obvious disappointment and surprise of many Southern gentlemen, who had cal culated on the opposition of every New England representative. I have only adverted to this history, for the purpose of showing that we of the New England States, and especially the woollens interest, were selected as the scapegoat; that while the bill was constructed in such a way as to satisfy all the Middle and Western States, that interest which most needed protection, and which had earnestly petitioned for it, was entirely deserted. Then came the bill of 1832, a bill of somewhat the same character with that which had preceded it. I de liberated long on the course which it was my duty to pursue; and, in conclusion, felt myself constrained to vote against that, as I had against the bill of 1828. When the period of my election came round, my opponents said that I had been found in bad company, and that I had stood side by side with Southern men in voting against a bill for protecting duties; and it was thence argued, by a similar course of reasoning to that which has been applied in the present debate, that I was an enemy to the tariff. A man, it was said, might be known by his company; and, as I had voted in the same way with avowed opponents of the whole tariff policy, I must be set down as agreeing with them in sentiment. Then followed the bill of 1833. I was called to act upon that, also; and the journals of the Senate will show that I voted in the negative, as I had done on the two former occasions. I took occasion at that time fully to express my sentiments in regard to that measure. They are in print, and will speak for themselves. The bill, however, passed, and became the law of the land; and, for myself, I acquiesced in it, as all citizens should do; nor am I aware that my State has discovered any disposition to interfere with its provisions. But something has been said here upon the subject of pledges. The Senator from Virginia, and some other members of the Senate, have observed that they have neither heard nor seen any recognition of pledges, on this side the House, to the observance of the act of 1833 as a compromise. I do not know that these remarks were intended to have a personal reference to myself; but yesterday the Senator from Virginia made the former remarks more pointed and personal, observing that he had carefully watched, throughout the debate, and had listened to hear whether any Northern Senator would acknowledge himself to be bound by the act as a bargain, and had heard no such a word from any one of them. He had heard no pledges from this side of the House. Pledges to what? What pledges does he demand? What did he expect? Is he not in favor of this bill? that the compromise act is nothing more to him than any other piece of paper. He approves the present bill, and will vote for it. Well, sir, and how stands the matter He says [SENATE. with his friends? Who brought this bill forward? Was it on my motion, or on the motion of those with whom I am associated? It was not. The bill has been matured by his own friends; and the chairman of the committee who reported it [Mr. WRIGHT] said it is obvious that about one million of the proposed amount of reduction falls within the provisions of the compromise act. Was it not, then, the deliberate purpose of the committee to report a bill which did interfere with the compromise; and do not all who support the bill avow the determination, which has been so frankly avowed by the chairman and by the Senator from Virginia, to invade that act? If such is the fact, and if this measure is not a mere experiment, but has been seriously brought forward here, what am I obliged to infer? Am I not compelled to believe that those who have brought it, and those who support it, mean to declare that we are not bound by the act of 1833? That, to use the language of the gentleman from Virginia, it is no more to us than a bit of parchment? If such is the tenor and tendency of their own remarks, and such the doctrine they themselves avow, then where is the propriety in calling upon us for pledges? When they avow their disregard of the compromise, do they expect that we shall pledge ourselves to regard it? If that is their expectation, then the present measure is without sense or object, that I can see. What influence is our opinion to have? Suppose we rose in our place, and declared that we held that act to be binding, would the honorable Senator from Virginia change his course? If he would, then must he not admit that this bill is a mere experiment-a test? The chairman assures us it is brought here with a view to its being passed; and gentlemen say that they are willing their sincerity shall be judged by their votes. For what, then, do they want pledges from us? It would not alter their course if we should give them. Their course is wholly independent of any opinion of ours. I cannot, therefore, make any apology for their course on this ground. I do not like to be called upon for senseless and unmeaning pledges. But I have another word to say about this matter of pledges. My opinions with regard to the compromise bill were freely given at the time it passed; but it became a law, and I acquiesced in it, as was my duty; nor have I given any proof of a disposition to disturb it. But I know that this matter has recently been brought before the Legislature of my State, and that there is a probability of legislative action in regard to it. I am not in posses sion of any authority to pledge my State to a course of future action; it would not become me; it does not belong to me. The utmost that could be demanded of me would be an expression of my own opinion. It is not for me to give pledges while the matter in hand is before my State Legislature. I can now state that the opinions of that body have arrived by the last mail; I shall lay the document before the Senate, and let it speak for itself. I thought it due to myself to say thus much on the subject of pledges; and, having done so, I will relieve the Senate, and resume my seat. Mr. BENTON went into a lengthy reply, in which he quoted the journal to show that the present bill was more advanced in proportion to the date of the session than the compromise bill had been in 1833; from which he took occasion to vindicate the committee who reported it from the charge of delay. He denied the binding force of the compromise act, against which he spoke with some severity. He warmly commended the policy of regulating commerce by equivalents, and expressed a determination to commence a regular system of operations with a view to have that policy extensively pursued by this Government. After a few remarks from Mr. NILES, the question was taken on striking out of the bill the words "com SENATE.] Reduction of the Tariff. mon salt," and decided in the negative, by yeas and nays, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing of Ohio, Kent, Knight, McKean, Nicholas, Robbins, Robinson, Southard, Webster-15. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Benton, Brown, Cuthbert, Ewing of Illinois, Fulton, Hubbard, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Linn, Lyon, Moore, Mouton, Niles, Norvell, Page, Parker, Prentiss, Rives, Ruggles, Sevier, Strange, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Walker, White, Wright-28. Mr. BENTON moved to amend the bill by inserting a particular kind of blankets, (specified in his amendment,) used principally by the Indians; which amendment was agreed to: Ayes 23, noes 14. Mr. NILES offered the following amendment: "That from and after the 30th day of September, 1837, the duty on fossil coal, culm coal screenings, and coke, imported into the United States, shall be one dollar per ton of two thousand two hundred and forty pounds; and that after the 30th day of September, 1838, the duty shall be sixty cents per ton." Mr. NILES addressed the Senate at considerable length in support of his amendment, and upon the principles of the bill. He remarked that it was known to the Senate that the subject of the duty on coal had been brought under the consideration of the Committee on Manufactures, of which he was a member, and that, in pursuance of the instruction of said committee, he had reported a bill for the entire repeal of the duty on foreign coal; but as it was not his intention to call up that bill, he had of fered this amendment to the bill under consideration, which related to the same general subject of the reduction of duties. The Committee on Manufactures had also made a report, containing somewhat at length their views of the subject, and their reasons for the reduction or repeal of the duty on coal; and did he suppose that Senators had examined that report, he would forbear any remarks in support of the amendment he offered; but from the great pressure on the time and attention of every Senator, and as the subject was not one of general interest, he had reason to believe that few gentlemen had given much attention to the report to which he had referred. He should, therefore, as briefly as he could, submit some general considerations in favor of the amendment. The present law imposes a duty of six cents per heaped bushel on coal, in general terms; and, from the vague and indefinite nature of the language, several questions have arisen, and prosecutions have been instituted to recover the duty in cases of doubt, under the present law. He believed a suit had been commenced in Pennsylvania in respect to coal screenings; and one had recently been decided in New York against the United States, the object of which was to recover the duty on imported coke. The jury decided that coke was not coal, and, therefore, not subject to duty by the existing law. Coke bears the same relation to fossil coal that charcoal does to wood. It is fossil coal charred, or burned, and loses fifty or sixty per cent. in weight by the process. The law is defective; and if the duty was to be maintained at its present rate, it ought to be amend ed. But his object was a reduction of the duty. A majority of the Committee on Manufactures had recom mended a repeal, and he had concurred in that opinion; but being satisfied that a repeal of the duty could not be carried at this time, he now only sought to obtain a reduction. A ton of coal contained about twenty-seven or twenty-eight bushels; and, at the present rate of impost, pays a duty of about one dollar and seventy cents, or now something less, as by the operation of the act of 1833 the duty has been reduced from six cents to five and one third cents per bushel. The reduction proposed is about [FEB. 24, 1837 forty per cent. on the 30th of September next; and in one year from that period about seventy per cent. The rate of duty at that time, should the amendment be adopted, would be about the same as what it will be reduced to in 1842, under the provisions of the act of 1833; that is, about twenty per cent., but probably rather above that rate. The duty on coal was imposed for revenue only, so far as respects all the former acts; and even as to the last act, that of 1824, it can hardly be claimed that the increase of duty was designed for protection. The act of 1789, which was the first imposing duties on imports, subjected coal to a duty of two cents per heaped bushel; the next year it was raised to three cents; in 1792, to four and a half cents; in 1816, when the whole system of revenue was revised at the close of the war, it was increased to five cents per bushel; and in 1824, to six cents. The act of 1824, which increased the duty one cent per bushel, is the only one that can be considered as having had any reference to protection; nor is it by any means clear that the addition to the duty made by that act had any reference to the protection of the domestic interest, for the country was then oppressed with debt from the war expenditures, and the rates of duty of many articles were increased for the purpose of revenue, and which were in no way connected with any domestic interest. But there is another and stronger reason tending to prove that the object of the increase of duty by the act of 1824 was not protection. The home coal trade then could hardly be said to exist, and it can scarcely be supposed that Congress intended a prospective protection of an interest not then in existence, or not of sufficient importance to demand attention. The preceding season, that of 1823, the whole amount of anthracite coal mined and brought to market was less than six thousand tons. The first anthracite coal which was introduced as an article of fuel was in 1820, when a few hundred tons only were used. It has been increasing since that time to the present. For some years the increase was very slow, but of late it has been very rapid; and since 1831, the anthracite coal which has been brought into the market from Pennsylvania alone has increased about one hundred thousand tons per annum. During the year 1836, nearly 700,000 tons were mined and brought to market. Fossil coal has now become a common article of fuel in all the cities and towns on the Atlantic border of the Union, and its use is extending into the country; and it is extensively used in factories. The primitive forests have been de stroyed, and what remain are wanted for timber. It appears to be the natural order and course of things, that during the early stages of the settlement of every country, the forests are the natural resource for supplying the inhabitants with fuel; but, in the progress of time, this resource must fail; the forests disappear before the industry and enterprise of man, and the lands are brought under cultivation. As every country becomes older and more populous, a greater portion of the lands are required for tillage, to supply the wants of the inhabitants; but when the forests are destroyed, and the lands generally brought into cultivation, some other resource must be discovered to supply fuel, one of the most indispensable articles of life; and a beneficient Providence has provided almost every country with an inexhaustible supply of fuel in its mountains, which are not susceptible of cultivation. This is eminently true in the United States. No country on the globe is more abundantly provided with fossil coal, or with better natural facilities of transporting it to the places where it may be wanted. West of the mountains coal abounds almost every where; east it is not so generally prevalent, yet there are large districts containing a supply for all time to come, most of which are in the State of Pennsylvania. In the older portions of the United States, we have just arrived at a period when the inhabitants must depend on fossil coal for fuel, instead of the forests which have hitherto supplied their wants. The transition from one description of fuel to the other has been astonishingly rapid within the last five or six years. If the increase in the consumption of coal continues for ten years at the same ratio it has for the last five years, there will, at that time, be one million seven hundred thousand tons consumed yearly from the mines of Pennsylvania alone. This quantity, at four dollars per ton, delivered at tide water, would amount to nearly seven millions of dollars. Pennsylvania had been highly favored; in addition to a fertile soil, she possesses treasures of wealth in her mountains of coal, of which the imagination could not well conceive. Unless fossil coal which may come into competition with her trade shall be discovered elsewhere, the time was not remote when she would receive twenty millions of dollars annually as the proceeds of her coal trade. All the Middle and Eastern States will be tributary to her for one of the first and most important necessaries of life. Mr. N. said that he did not envy Pennsylvania these advantages; he rejoiced that she possessed them; it would always afford him pleasure to witness her advance in that career of wealth and greatness which seemed open to her. All that he desired was, that she should exhibit a just moderation in her prosperity; that she should be satisfied with reasonable profits on her immense coal trade. But he was not willing that, by means of an onerous duty of fifty per cent. on the foreign article, she should be enabled to obtain nearly two dollars per ton for her coal more than the fair minimum price. From the facts he had stated, it was, he thought, apparent that the question of the coal duty had now become one of great magnitude and importance, both to those engaged in the domestic coal trade and to the country generally. When the last act was passed, in 1824, the question was of but trifling consequence, and there was no reason to suppose that it had received much consideration. Even if he were to admit that the increase of the duty by the act of 1824 was designed to favor the domestic coal interest, the question then was of so little importance, it cannot reasonably be believed that the subject was then fully examined or discussed. But the time has now arrived when Congress is called on to decide whether it is just and proper to continue an onerous duty of nearly fifty per cent. on one of the first necessaries of life, which was originally imposed and has been maintained for revenue only. Why shall this duty be continued? Is it wanted for revenue? This is not claimed. It is our purpose to reduce the revenue, and the bill before us has been introduced for that object. It reduces the revenue nearly two and a half millions. The duty on coal in 1835 was nearly one hundred and thirty thousand dollars; and, should this amendment prevail, it would reduce the duty about forty thousand dollars the first year, and something like eighty thousand afterwards. So far as the revenue was concerned, the measure was desirable, as our object is to reduce the revenue-to avoid a surplus, which is distracting Congress and the country. But the Committee on Manufactures had not recommended the repeal of the coal duty as a financial measure. The general subject of the reduction of duties had been intrusted to another committee, no doubt much more competent to so arduous a task. They had proposed the repeal of the coal duty, as a measure of relief to the country from what they believed to be an unnecessary and burdensome tax, which bore particularly hard on the poor; but, so far as the measure would have any effect on the finances, it was favorable; but that was altogether a secondary object. Is the present high rate of duty on imported coal ne [SENATE. cessary to protect the home coal trade? This, it must be admitted, is the only ground on which the duty can be justified. He did not, however, believe that so high a rate of duty was necessary for that purpose; nor could he be satisfied, if it was, that it would be reasonable and just to continue it. Mr. N. said he doubted whether any duty was required to protect the domestic coal interest, and was quite sure that so high a rate of duty could not be demanded. He did not intend to go into a full discussion of this question, but would barely allude to some considerations which had led him to believe that the coal trade was not an interest requiring protection. Fossil coal is a raw material, a mineral existing in the bowels of the earth in a pure state, and fit for use. It did not have to be separated from other and grosser materials; it underwent no process of refining, or any preparation whatever, to fit it for use. It was not the product of human skill, art, or industry, of any kind; it was a valuable deposite in nature's storehouse, provided by a kind Providence, to supply the wants and administer to the comforts of man. All that remained to be done was for him to put forth his band and remove it from its bed, where it had been deposited for his use. It was one of those indispensable necessaries of life which God had provided in a state fit for use, leaving nothing for man to do. The coal trade was wholly unlike those manufacturing interests that require a high degree of skill and experience, which can only be acquired by a long course of practice, aided by mechanical power and by a knowledge of the construction and use of complicated machinery. The protection to manufactures is defend. ed mainly on the ground that they cannot, in their infancy, stand against foreign competition, and that protection is necessary during the period which is required to enable the home manufacturer to acquire that skill and experience which exists in other countries. This argument, which is the strongest in support of the protection of manufactures, has no application to the coal trade. Another argument, scarcely less weighty in favor of protecting manufactures, is the necessity of guarding them against the depressions and fluctuations of foreign markets; which, were it not for protective duties, would at such periods glut our markets with foreign goods-imported, perhaps, at a sacrifice-and which would be ruinous to our own manufactures. This evil could never be experienced in the coal trade, as the value of foreign coal in our market depends principally on the freight and charges of importation. There is another cogent reason why the home coal trade cannot require protection against foreign competition; which is, that it is sufficiently protected by the bulk and weight of the article, the almost entire value of which arises from the labor and expense of mining and getting it to market. In a business of this description, it was manifest that the home dealer must possess advantages over the foreign trader, who must be compelled to pay much larger freights, insurance, and charges. Coal is worth, in Liverpool, about thirteen cents per bushel, or between three and four dollars per ton, being nearly as high as the price at which American coal ought to be sold at tide water. Some years since, coal was sold at Philadelphia at $4 75 per ton, and he had no doubt that it could be sold at $4, and afford a fair remuneration for the labor and capital. It is valued at fifty cents in the pit, and it costs fifty cents more to mine it, leaving three dollars for transporting it to tide water and for profits. If the importer has to pay for coal nearly as much in Liverpool as it is worth in Philadelphia, how is it possible that any thing is to be feared from foreign competition? The expenses of importing so heavy and bulky an article as coal must be an ample protection to the home trade. It is estimated that the expense of the importation of goods, including freight, commissions, insurance, and all charges, together with the difference in exchange, amounts to at least twenty per cent.; and the expenses of the importation of iron are said to be thirty per cent. It can hardly be supposed, therefore, that coal can be imported at less than fifty per cent.; and he believed that one hundred would probably be found nearer the truth. Without going into other considerations, Mr. N. said he thought it was clear that the domestic coal trade was not exposed to suffer from foreign competition, even if the entire duty were repealed. And if this were the case, then the only effect of the duty was to raise the price of the American coal something like two dollars per ton above its minimum value. This must be the effect of the duty on foreign coal, unless there is sufficient domestic competition to keep down the price, without the aid of the foreign trade, which he did not believe was the case. Mr. N. said that he had thrown out some suggestions, intended to show that the coal duty was not required for the protection of the home trade; but, even if he was incorrect in this, he believed that there were objections to this duty so serious and weighty that, in any view which can be taken of the subject, a high rate of duty could not be defended as-consistent with the principles of justice or humanity. He would barely allude to some of these objections: The duty on foreign coal is necessarily a partial tax; and, as it operates unequally and partially, it is unjust. The duty on foreign coal tends to raise the price of the domestic article, so far as they come in competition with each other, and no farther. This competition is wholly confined to the cities and towns on the Atlantic border. Imported coal never has been, and never can be, conveyed west of the mountains, or any considerable distance into the interior. That section of the Union has an inexhaustible supply of native coal, abounding in all directions, so that foreign coal, if there were no duty, could never interfere. It is only the inhabitants on the seaboard who have any interest in this question; and the tax, both on the foreign and domestic article, is paid by them alone. This tax, therefore, is too limited and partial in its operation to be just. [FEB. 24, 1837. concurred in most that the Senator said on that question, yet still he believed that most of his remarks would apply with more force, justice, and truth, to the onerous tax on fuel. Salt, it is true, is one of the first neces saries of life, more universal in its use than coal or fuel of any kind, as it is required for the subsistence of beasts as well as man. But the amount of the tax, especially that paid by the poorer classes, was trifling compared with the tax they pay upon fuel. The class of families to whom he had referred as consuming three tons of coal would not use probably three bushels of salt a year; so that they would pay a salt tax of thirty cents, and a fuel tax of six dollars. What the honorable Senator had said of the practices of the regraters in the salt trade would apply with more force to the regraters in the coal trade. And how far these practices were sustained and kept up by the duty, might be a question; but he verily believed that if the duty was repealed, and foreign competition let in, the extortionary and oppressive measures of the regraters would be at an end, or their enormity very much diminished. The selfishness and rapacity of second-hand dealers and regraters in the coal business were greatly favored by the condition of the trade: anthracite coal, which was the kind used in the Northern cities, came almost entirely from Philadelphia, an inland port, which was closed nearly three months in the year, and during that period when the demand for fuel was most pressing; the duty excluded foreign coal, and the ice shut out any additional supply from Philadelphia at the setting in of winter. This gave the holders the control of the market, who have nothing more to do but to combine, to enable them to regulate the price at their pleasure. This they have done the last three years, in all the cities north of Philadelphia. During the last long and severe winter, these merciless regraters in New York, as he was credibly informed, held their regular meetings, at which they consulted the thermometer, and the capacity of the citizens to endure freezing. As the cold increased, and the sufferings of the poor became more intense, they raised the price of coal from week to week, and even from day to day. So complete was this system of op pression, that the price of fuel formed a scale to deter mine the continuance and degree of the cold. The re worth seven dollars per ton when the navigation closed, was raised to sixteen dollars per ton. The sufferings of the poor, under such a state of things, might be conceived, but could not be described. Another and more serious objection to the coal duty is, that it is a tax on one of the prime necessaries for up-sult of this system was, that coal which was probably holding life, and is extremely burdensome and oppres sive to the poor. In a country where the winters are so long and severe as in a considerable portion of the United States, fuel is one of the first necessaries of life. During the last year, not less than nine months a fire But (said Mr. N.) he would by no means assert that was required for comfort, and at all times is indispen- these regraters in coal were sinners above all other men: sable for cooking and family purposes. Coal is the the evil, great as it was, ought to be ascribed to the concheapest kind of fuel; and a tax on it is peculiarly bur-dition of the coal trade. The retail dealers had only densome to the poorer classes, especially in our cities. Next to rent, fuel is one of the most expensive articles; the very poorest families cannot get along with less than three tons of coal yearly. Considering the tax as two dollars per ton, it will amount to six dollars per annum to the poorest families. This would be a heavy tax; but it is not all nor the worst of the case. They are subject ed to a still more oppressive tax, by the second-hand holders and regraters, as the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] called them the other day, in speaking against the salt duty. He exposed the foul practices and oppressions of the regraters, in relation to the article of common salt, in the most eloquent and forcible manner. Mr. N. said that he really wished he could have the benefit of the talents and influence of that Senator on this question. In his speech against the salt tax, it appeared to him the gentleman was actually inspired; his eloquence was too fervid and sublime to be confined to the sober style of prose; it broke directly into the more elevated and pathetic strains of poetry. He (Mr. N.) done what nearly all men will do; they had only taken advantage of circumstances to obtain the highest price for their commodity. This, however unjust and oppressive in many cases, is what the cupidity of the human heart will lead most men to do. It is the embarrassed state of the trade, the obstruction of the home trade, and the exclusion of foreign competition, which has occasioned these results-which has led to practices so oppressive, cruel, and inhuman to the poor. Who can contemplate evils like these, and sufferings such as he had feebly attempted to describe, and believing that they are in any degree the result of our legislation, without feeling an emotion of indignation springing up in his heart? There is (said Mr. N.) another cause that has contributed to the evils in the coal trade, which he had attempted to point out, and which, in his opinion, was a sufficient reason against continuing a high rate of duty on foreign coal, were there no other. He alluded to the fact that the coal trade was in the hands of a few large com |
