The Congressional Globe, Volume 26: Thirty-Second Congress, Second Session Page: 89
xxxix, 1168 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
THE OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF CONGRESS, PUBLISHED BY JOHN C. RIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C.
32d Congress, 2nd Session.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1852.
New Series....No. 4.
backed by Russia, Austria, and Prussia, prepared
to test with us the question whether foreign Gov-
ernments shall gain a foothold on this continent.
The issue is not whether we shall follow the doc-
trine of Kossuth and go abroad, but the question
is presented to the American people whether we
are ready and willing to maintain the Monroe doc-
trine. If so, we will have to fight for it.
He said he was opposed to a modification of
the tariff at this time, because we have no land-
marks to guide us; we have no statistics; not a
single document; not even a message from the
President upon the subject giving data; nothing to
throw light upon this perplexed and perplexing
question. Yet gentlemen propose to open the
whole question of the tariff, and act with reference
to a reduction to get rid of surplus revenue. He
gave several reasons why the subject should not
now be acted upon. We have, he said, recently
elected a President who is to be spokesman for us.
Shall he have a hearing? Is it for the Democratic
party to say he shall not have a hearing? He did
not believe it. How a Democrat could vote to
open this question before the man they had elected
is inaugurated, and before a Secretary of the
Treasury is appointed to furnish the details, was
to him extraordinary. He said, in the course of
his remarks expressive of his views upon the tariff,
that he should vote for the amendment in favor of
continuing the ad valorem principle, and then vote
against the whole of the pending proposition.
[Mr. Jones's speech will be found in the Ap-
Mr. JOHNSON, of Georgia. Mr. Chairman,
in the few remarks I propose to submit, J do not
intend to have reference to any party now subsist-
ing in the country. They shall be strictly to the
question immediately under consideration. And
in the first placfe, I am in favor of the appointment
of the proposed select committee, to be charged
with the specific duty of inquiring into the sub-
ject of the revenue arising from customs, and to
report thereon to the House and the country. I
am in favor of it, because I desire to have action,
and action based upon full information. If this
question be referred to the Committee on Ways
and Means, the ordinary and onerous duties of
legislation which are now imposed upon them, will
render it impossible for them to collect facts, and
present them to this House, and the country, in a
shape to warrant wise legislation. In the next
place, I am in favor of a revision and reduction of
the tariff. I was in favor of the tariff of 1846. It
was suited to the condition and the interests of the
country at that date; but since that time the pop-
ulation of the Union has increased, new sources of
industry have been opened up, and our imports
and exports have been very much enlarged; and
it is necessary that our financial system should be
changed. We have in the Treasury more than a
sufficiency to meet the expenditures in an econom-
ical administration of the Government; and I un-
derstand that it is a principle of the Democratic
party, to raise no more money than will carry on
the Government, economically administered. If
the amount of surplus revenue be too large, and
thecondition ofthecountry has materially changed,
there certainly must be a necessity for the revision
and reduction of the tariff. This question being
conceded, (and I believe that it is conceded on all
hands,) the next one that presents itself to the
consideration of the House is, when shall the re-
vision and reduction be made? Gentlemen say
postpone the matter—now is not the proper time
—this is the short session. This is the short ses-
sion. But cannot we collect facts and commence
legislation? Although we may not be able at this
session to perfect it, much will have been done by
the appointmentof a committee, and the collection
of facts. We will thus induce legitimate action
by our successors on the subject. 1
It is said that a new Administration in coming
'n; .True, sir; but is the incoming of a new Ad-
ministration to prevent me from looking at the con- i
dition of the country, and to provide by legislation ;
for its wants? W^hy should we wait for the new '
Administration? Is it to dictate to this House and
, to the country—is it, or are we to pass laws under
its recommendation not sanctioned by our judg- !
ment? If we have the facts laid before us, we can
legislate as well without as with the direction of
the Executive. It belongs to the Executive to ex- I
ecute the laws, and not to make them. It belongs |
to the Executive to carry out the tariff act, and it 1
belongs to us to revise and modify it. It is stated
by some that we cannot get the necessary facts,
because an Administration is noW in power with
politics differing from those of a majority of this
House. Suppose that to be true for the sake of
argument. We will admit it to be true. What
does this resolution propose? It proposes, in the
absence of correct information from the heads of
Bureaus and Departments, that the select commit-
tee shall have power to send for persons and pa-
pers; to compel the attendance of the heads of
Bureaus and Departments, and elicit all the facts
of the case from them, notwithstanding in poli-
tics the Administration may be opposed to a ma-
jority of this House. It can be as well done now
as hereafter. It is said that the financial reports
made to Congress during the present Administra-
tion have been erroneous. Well, sir, when the
fact of error is ascertained the point of truth is also
ascertained; and we have now before us, if that
assertion be correct, what is false and what is,
true, and now is the time to commence the de-
signed revision and reduction. They cannot be
effected, in all probability, this session; but there
must be a beginning, and what more proper time
than the present ?
Mr. FREEMAN. The gentleman says that if
we commence the work now, undoubtedly it will
not be finished during this session.
Mr. JOHNSON. Probably it will not be com-
: pleted, I said.
Mr. FREEMAN. Such is the remark of most
JI of the gentlemen in favor of the proposed refer-
ence of the subject of the tariff to a select commit-
tee. Of what service will the commencement of
!, this business be to the Congress now shortly to
j succeed us? Is not the public time wasted by
j this proceeding when other matters of more im-
l portance are pressing for our consideration, and
j when gentlemen acknowledge that it is not their
| purpose to bring the business to a conclusion at
j this session ?
I Mr. JOHNSON. The gentleman from Mis-
sissippi is mistaken in reference to one point. I
say that probably the matter will not be brought
to a conclusion at this session. I am, sir, ready
—anxious, at this session, to bring it to a conclu-
sion on certain principles. I would approxi-
mate the tariff as near to free trade as possible—
as near as a proper tax for the economical admin-
istration of the Government would allow. I am
in favor of the principle of free trade and taxation
alone to sustain the Government. The principle
of protection I eschew and abandon. In laying a
tax upon certain articles, incidental protection re-
sults as a matter of course; but the object of tax-
ation is not protection, and it should not be. And
for the purpose of approximating to the free-trade
principle, I would concur with the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Brooks] in increasing the
free list as much as possible. Again, for the
purpose of having it just and equal, I would, with
the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Wood-
ward,] be opposed to a horizontal tariff, and in
favor of discrimination, though not discrimination
for protection. A distinction has always been
made by this Government between articles, and I
ani in favor of distinction. The act of 1846 is a
discriminating tariff act. It puts a duty of five
per cent, on some, and twenty per cent, on other
articles, and one hundred per cent, on some and
thirty per cent, on others, discriminating according 1
to the condition of the manufactures and produc- ,
tions of the country. In the language of the gen-
tleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Woodward,]
a horizontal tariff is an absurdity. It would be
unequal and unfair, and in many instances pro-
tective and prohibitory.
The next principle I would observe in revising
and reducing the tariff, would be to impose the w
duties on such articles as would throw the tax
rather on the property than the individuals of the
Union. I would tax fine silks, segars, and first
brand brandies to the highest revenue point. I am,
in the next place, opposed to giving encourage-
ment by bounty protection to any branch of in-
dustry; and I am equally opposed, by operation of
law, to the destruction of any, because it would be
a violation of the principle of free trade. I would
be glad to see manufactures flourish throughout the
length and breadth of the land. I have no hos-
tility to that branch of industry, nor to any other.
I am willing, for the purpose of relieving them from
the heavy burdens imposed by law, to make the
raw material imported from foreign countries and
entering into fabrics of this country, free of duty.
I am in favor of taking the tax off certain articles
made in other countries and imported into this for
fabrication. Is this protection of manufactures?
Not at all. Other countries, whose manufactures
enter into competition with our own, relieve the
raw material from tax, and by that means, labor
and the cost of other materials being the same, they
can manufacture cheaper than our own people. I
would place our people upon a footing with the
people of those countries, so that our manufactures
might compete with theirs. This competition re-
sults in favor of the consumer. The consumer
and manufacturer are both benefited. It is not
protection, but it is the removal of protection.
I would, Mr. Chairman, remove the obstacles
to the increase of internal communication. I would
encourage all facilities for transportation through-
out the country I could consistently with the princi-
ples of free trade. This will be for the benefit of
the consumer, and the benefit of the producer. For
instance: How much would it costfor the delivery
of a barrel of flour prepared in the West for mar-
ket, supposing all your steamboats and railroads
were not in existence ? As you increase railroad
communication, you reduce freights, and the de-
mand and the cost of production being the same,
you also reduce the price.
The greater number of facilities and the more
population you have, the less it will cost to trans-
port to other parts a bag of cotton. Then, in re-
turn, there is the merchant to be benefited .by
bringing to the door of every consumer market-
able articles; and by the amount you diminish the
prices of freights, you benefit the consumer to that
extent. Here, then, if.you increase the facilities of
transportation, you will benefit the consumer and
producer—the merchant and the manufacturer.
Well, that being the case, how shall we arrive at
that object ? how shall it be accomplished ? Why,
we can accomplish it in part by making railroad
iron free of duty. That is the way in which it can
be done. "There are some enterprises in the coun-
try which are too large for individual efforts—too
great for individual capital, and legislation ought
not to intervene for the purpose of destroying the
combination of capital and labor. If you will re-
move the burdens which you have put upon iron,
and let it come in free, inducements will be held
out, not by protection, but by relief for companies
to associate for the purpose of building roads.
That being done, all these benefits which I im-
perfectly described will result to the producer
and consumer.
It is necessary that we should do something.
We have a large surplus, and the probability is
that that surplus will increase, unless the contin-
gencies arise which have been referred to in the
debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Jones] asks, " Where stands Cuba?" Shestands
as a dependency of Spain, and I hope she wil
stand as such dependency until Spain voluntarily
relinquishes her right in that Island to us. I
am for no crusade, to take Cuba from Spain by
violence, fraud, or unjust means. I am not in
favor of any illegal expeditions being fitted out in
this country, contrary to our neutral obligations
and the express law of our own land. If we ac-
quire Cuba by treaty and negotiation, perhaps
there may be a necessity for using this #1%000,000
of surplus; but let us not anticipate events. Here
the question is upon us, What shall we do with
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 26: Thirty-Second Congress, Second Session, book, 1853; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc30783/m1/89/: accessed April 23, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.