University of Virginia Library

APRIL 9. DUTIES ON IMPORTS.

From what has been suggested by the gentlemen that have
spoken on the subject before us, I am led to apprehend we
shall be under the necessity of travelling further into an
investigation of principles than what I supposed would be
necessary, or had in contemplation when I offered the propositions
before you.

It was my view to restrain the first essay on this subject
principally to the object of revenue, and make this rather a
temporary expedient than any thing permanent.[106] I see,

however, that there are strong exceptions against deciding
immediately on a part of the plan, which I had the honor to
bring forward, as well as against an application to the resources
mentioned in the list of'articles just proposed by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania. (Mr. Hartley.)

I presume, that, however much we may be disposed to
promote domestic manufactures, we ought to pay some
regard to the present policy of obtaining revenue. It may
be remarked also, that by fixing on a temporary expedient
for this purpose, we may gain more than we shall lose by
suspending the consideration of the other subject until we
obtain fuller information of the state of our manufactures.
We have at this time the strongest motives for turning our
attention to the point I have mentioned; every gentleman
sees that the prospect of our harvest from the Spring importations
is daily vanishing; and if the committee delay levying
and collecting an impost until a system of protecting duties

shall be perfected, there will be no importations of any consequence
on which the law is to operate, because, by that
time, all the Spring vessels will have arrived. Therefore,
from a pursuit of this policy, we shall suffer a loss equal to
the surplus which might be expected from a system of higher
duties.

I am sensible that there is great weight in the observation
that fell from the honorable gentleman from South Carolina,
(Mr. Tucker,) that it will be necessary, on the one hand, to
weigh and regard the sentiments of the gentlemen from the
different parts of the United States; but, on the other hand,
we must limit our consideration on this head, and, notwithstanding
all the deference and respect we pay to those sentiments,
we must consider the general interest of the Union;
for this is as much every gentleman's duty to consider as is
the local or State interest—and any system of impost that
this committee may adopt must be founded on the principles
of mutual concession.

Gentlemen will be pleased to recollect, that those parts of
the Union which contribute more under one system than
the other, are also those parts more thinly planted, and consequently
stand most in need of national protection; therefore
they will have less reason to complain of unequal burdens.

There is another consideration: the States that are most
advanced in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to
have their particular interests attended to in some degree.
While these States retained the power of making regulations
of trade, they had the power to protect and cherish such
institutions; by adopting the present Constitution they have
thrown the exercise of this power into other hands; they
must have done this with an expectation that those interests
would not be neglected here.

I am afraid, sir, on the one hand, that if we go fully into a
discussion of the subject, we shall consume more time than
prudence would dictate to spare; on the other hand, if we do
not develope it, and see the principles on which we mutually

act, we shall subject ourselves to great difficulties. I beg
leave, therefore, to state the grounds on which my opinion,
with respect to the matter under consideration, is founded,
namely, whether our present system should be a temporary
or a permanent one? In the first place, I own myself the
friend to a very free system of commerce, and hold it as a
truth, that commercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive,
and impolitic; it is also a truth, that if industry and
labor are left to take their own course, they will generally
be directed to those objects which are the most productive,
and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom
of the most enlightened Legislature could point out.
Nor do I think that the national interest is more promoted
by such restrictions than that the interest of individuals
would be promoted by legislative interference directing the
particular application of its industry. For example, we
should find no advantage in saying that every man should
be obliged to furnish himself, by his own labor, with those
accommodations which depend on the mechanic arts, instead
of employing his neighbor, who could do it for him on better
terms. It would be of no advantage to the shoemaker to
make his own clothes to save the expense of the tailor's bill,
nor of the tailor to make his own shoes to save the expense
of procuring them from the shoemaker. It would be better
policy to suffer each of them to employ his talents in his own
way. The case is the same between the exercise of the arts
and agriculture—between the city and the country—and
between city and town; each capable of making particular
articles in abundance to supply the other: thus all are benefited
by exchange, and the less this exchange is cramped by
Government, the greater are the proportions of benefit to
each. The same argument holds good between nation and
nation, and between parts of the same nation.

In my opinion it would be proper also for gentlemen to
consider the means of encouraging the great staple of America,
I mean agriculture; which I think may justly be styled

the staple of the United States, from the spontaneous productions
which nature furnishes, and the manifest advantage
it has over every other object of emolument in this country.
If we compare the cheapness of our land with that of other
nations, we see so decided an advantage in that cheapness,
as to have full confidence of being unrivalled. With respect
to the object of manufactures, other countries may and do
rival us; but we may be said to have a monopoly in agriculture;
the possession of the soil, and the lowness of its price,
give us as much a monopoly in this case as any nation or
other parts of the world have in the monopoly of any article
whatever; but with this advantage to us, that it cannot be
shared nor injured by rivalship.

If nay general principle is a good one, that commerce ought
to be free, and labor and industry left at large to find its
proper object, the only thing which remains will be to discover
the exceptions that do not come within the rule I have
laid down. I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
that there are exceptions important in themselves, and
which claim the particular attention of the committee. Although
the freedom of commerce would be advantageous to
the world, yet, in some particulars, one nation might suffer
to benefit others, and this ought to be for the general good
of society.

If America was to leave her ports perfectly free, and make
no discrimination between vessels owned by her citizens and
those owned by foreigners, while other nations make this
discrimination, it is obvious that such policy would go to
exclude American shipping altogether from foreign ports,
and she would be materially affected in one of her most
important interests. To this we may add another consideration,
that by encouraging the means of transporting our
productions with facility, we encourage the raising them:
and this object, I apprehend, is likely to be kept in view by
the General Government.

Duties laid on imported articles may have an effect which

comes within the idea of national prudence. It may happen
that materials for manufactures may grow up without any
encouragement for this purpose; it has been the case in some.
of the States, but in others regulations have been provided,
and have succeeded in producing some establishments, which
ought not to be allowed to perish, from the alteration which
has taken place: it would be cruel to neglect them and divert
their industry to other channels; for it is not possible for the
hand of man to shift from one employment to another without
being injured by the change. There may be some manufactures,
which, being once formed, can advance towards
perfection without any adventitious aid, while others, for
want of the fostering hand of Government, will be unable to
go on at all. Legislative attention will therefore be necessary
to collect the proper objects for this purpose, and this
will form another exception to my general principle.

I observe that a sumptuary prohibition is within the view
of some of the proposed articles, and forms another exception.
I acknowledge that I do not, in general, think any great
national advantage arises from restrictions passed on this
head, because, as long as a distinction in point of value subsists,
sumptuary duties, in some form or other, will prevail
and take effect.

Another exception is embargoes in time of war. These
may necessarily occur and shackle the freedom of commerce;
but the reasons for this are so obvious, that it renders any
remark unnecessary.

The next exception that occurs, is one on which great stress
is laid by some well informed men, and this with great plausibility.
That each nation should have within itself the means
of defence, independent of foreign supplies: that in whatever
relates to the operations of war, no State ought to depend
upon a precarious supply from any part of the world. There
may be some truth in this remark, and therefore it is proper
for legislative attention. I am, though, well persuaded that
the reasoning on this subject has been carried too far. The

difficulties we experienced a few years ago of obtaining
military supplies, ought not furnish too much in favor of
an establishment which would be difficult and expensive;
because our national character is now established and recognised
throughout the world, and the laws of war favor national
exertion more than intestine commotion, so that there
is good reason to believe that, when it becomes necessary, we
may obtain supplies from abroad as readily as any other
nation whatsoever. I have mentioned this because I think
I see something among the enumerated articles that seems
to favor such a policy.

The impost laid on trade for the purpose of obtaining
revenue may likewise be considered as an exception; so far,
therefore, as revenue can be more conveniently and certainly
raised by this than any other method, without injury to the
community, and its operation will be in due proportion to
the consumption, which consumption is generally proportioned
to the circumstances of individuals, I think sound
policy dictates to use this means; but it will be necessary to
confine our attention at this time peculiarly to the object of
revenue, because the other subject involves some intricate
questions, to unravel which we perhaps are not prepared. I
have no objection to the committee's accepting the propositions
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because
so far as we can enumerate the proper objects, and apply
specific duties to them, we conform to the practice prevalent
in many of the States, and adopt the most laudable method
of collecting revenue; at least preferable to laying a general
tax. Whether, therefore, we consult ease and convenience in
collection, or pursuing habits already adopted and approved,
specific duties, as far as the articles can be properly enumerated,
is the most eligible mode of obtaining the end in
contemplation. Upon the whole, as I think some of the
propositions may be productive of revenue, and some may
protect our domestic manufactures, though the latter subject
ought not to be too confusedly blended with the former,

I hope the committee will receive them, and let them lie
over, in order that we may have time to consider how far
they are consistent with justice and policy.[107]