Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

In 1789, a moderate protective duty was established, on all imported articles; in 1816, a high protective tariff was for the first time established. Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun were its most important advocates. The tariff was raised in 1818, and in 1822, and was made much higher in 1824. Mr. Webster opposed it with his peculiar ability, in a speech not yet forgotten. In 1828, a very high tariff was established by what has been called "the Bill of Abominations." In 1832-3, the tariff relaxed a little, to avert a civil war. Mr. Clay got his celebrated "compromise act" established. The compromise lasted about nine years, till 1842. The celebrated tariff of 1842 was passed under the administration of Mr. Tyler, and is too well known to require any remarks from us. Mr. Webster admitted it had "its imperfections."

Mr. Polk came into power with the idea of a Revenue Tariff in his mind. The bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 114 to 95, 1 Whig and 113 Democrats voting on that side; 71 Whigs, 18 Democrats, and 6" Native Americans" voting on the opposite side. It passed the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice President, who was pledged to the measure before his election. A law of this magnitude has seldom passed any modern legislature with such imperfect discussion. In the Senate only a single man, Mr. Lewis, spoke in defence of the bill; its friends gave "their thoughts no tongue," they were "checked for silence but never taxed for speech." Certainly we must say the conduct of the friends of the bill was eminently unjust, and the bill itself was carried, not by its merits, but by the power of the party; not by force of mind, but force of numbers.

It is a little painful to see how confident men are when they are so exceedingly short-sighted. We copy some of the remarks of the leading newspapers of the day.

"The more its details [of the bill] are studied, the more odious is it made to appear; ""it is fruitful of mischief, and of mischief only;" members of Congress must be callous to every principle of justice, to every feeling of humanity, . . if they can consent to destroy a measure so important as the law of 1842." "The spirit of evil, the exactions of party, the behests of the Baltimore Convention have finally triumphed over the

Nathan Hale." 1827. p. 5, et seq. See, also, the Proceedings of the meeting at Faneuil Hall, Oct. 2d, 1820, in the New Eng and Palladium of Oct. 3d, 1820. Also appended to Letters of S. D. Bradford, Esq. Boston. 1846. p. 37, et seq.

tw

prayers and remonstrances of a betrayed and terrified people. The fatal measure which strikes at the root of all the industry of the country, and at the living of every man in it who earns his bread by the sweat of his brow, this misshapen and monstrous scheme, . . this measure so pregnant of evil, has secured the sanction of both houses of Congress;" the specie will be "all drained out of the country in order to pay the balance of trade; credit will expand to its utmost to save the spe

[ocr errors]

cie. At length, having neither cash nor credit, poverty steps in with its imperative restraints."

Mr. Webster made a learned, and in many respects a very able speech, though he weakened his rhetoric with a little extravagance, unusual with him, against the new Tariff,against its general principles, and its particular details. He said, in the Senate:

"The Treasury cannot, in my opinion, be supplied at the ratio which has been stated, and is expected, by any possible, I will say passible, augmentation of importations." "Why, the effect of this bill is to diminish freights, and to affect the navigating interests of the United States most seriously, most deeply; and therefore it is, that all the ship owners of the United States, without an exception, so far as we hear from them, oppose the bill. It is said to be in favor of free trade and against monopoly. But every man connected with trade is against it; and this leads me to ask, and I ask with earnestness, and hope to receive an answer, at whose request, at whose recommendation, for the promotion of what interest, is this measure introduced? Is it for the importing merchants? They all reject it, to a man. Is it for the owners of the navigation of the country? They remonstrate against it. The whole internal industry of the country opposes it. The shipping interest opposes it. The importing interest opposes

it. Who is it that calls for it, or proposes it? Who asks for it? Who? Has there been one single petition presented in its favor from any quarter of the country? Has a single individual in the United States come up here and told you that his interest would be protected, promoted, and advanced, by the passage of a measure like this? Sir, there is an imperative unity of the public voice the other way, altogether the other way. And when we are told that the public requires this, and that the people require it, we are to understand by the public, certain political men, who have adopted the shibboleth of party, for the public; and certain persons who have symbols, ensigns, and party flags, for the people; and that's all. I aver, sir, that is all."

*Speech of July 25th, 1846.

The administration "proposes a new system adverse to all our experience, hostile to every thing we have ever learned, different from the experience of any country on the face of the earth." "It is prohibitory of internal labor. . It does encourage the labor of foreign artisans over and above, and in preference to, the labor of our own artisans here in the United States."

Before the passage of the bill, Mr. Webster presented in the Senate a memorial "signed by every importer of dry goods in the city of Boston, against the bill for the repeal of the Tariff."

What shall be said of the Tariff of 1846;- has it failed to produce a revenue; has it drained the specie out of the country; has it led to a great extension of paper money; has it produced the confusion occasioned by the Tariffs of '16, of '28, of '42? Has it impoverished the nation? The answer is all about us! Still, we admit that by adopting the ad valorem instead of specific duties, an opportunity has been left for fraudulent invoices, and great fraud has been committed, doing a wrong to the government, and still more to the fair and honorable merchant.

The "re-occupation of Oregon" was also recommended in Mr. Polk's first message. Our title" to the whole of Oregon territory" was was "asserted, and, as is believed, maintained by irrefragable facts and arguments; "to the Oregon our title is clear and unquestionable;" our "claims could not be abandoned without a sacrifice of both national honor and interests," and "no compromise which the United States ought to accept could be effected." He recommended that we should give the British notice of our intention to terminate the period of joint occupancy, as the treaty of 1818 allowed either party to do. Mr. Polk, on other occasions, showed himself rather raw in diplomatic affairs; it would seem that he knew little of the matter in hand when he wrote the sentences above. They show him as a mere servant of his party, not as a great statesman, able to mediate between two mighty nations, and distribute justice with an even hand.

A great deal of discussion took place. The minor prophets and the major gave counsel after their kind. The Unionthe Organ of the government at Washington-contended for "the whole of Oregon or none. That is the only alternative as an issue of territorial right." But the Charleston Mercury was all at once afflicted with a conscience, and could distin

guish between "claims" and "rights." We shall presently see the reason of the difference. In the Senate, Mr. Sevier of Arkansas, said that "war will come;" Mr. Breese of Illinois, would not have the government "grant any position to Great Britain upon any spot whatever of Oregon." Mr. Allen of Ohio, said the "American Government could not recede short of 54, 40." Mr. Hannegan of Indiana, thought that "the abandonment or surrender of any portion of Oregon would be an abandonment of the power, character, and best interests of the American people." Mr. Cass thought "an old-fashioned war," "was almost inevitable; " Great Britain "might be willing to submit the question to arbitration, but the crowned heads whom she would propose as arbitrators would not be impartial, for they would cherish antirepublican feelings." He would negotiate, as Mr. Webster very justly said, with the avowed predetermination to take nothing less than the whole of the territory in dispute. In the House of Representatives, John Quincy Adams went in for the territory on religious grounds, and claimed the whole of Oregon on the strength of the first chapter of Genesis. His conduct and his counsels on this occasion can hardly be called less than rash.

war,

The South was not at all anxious to obtain the whole of Oregon. Mr. Calhoun was singularly moderate in his desire for re-occupation; nice about questions of title and boundary, and desirous of keeping the peace. The reason is obvious. Mr. Hannegan said well, "If it [Oregon] was good for the production of sugar and cotton, it would not have encountered the objection it has done." "I dreaded, on the part of those who were so strenuously in favor of the annexation of Texas at the Baltimore Convention, I dreaded, on their part, Punic faith." Poor, deluded Mr. Hannegan, he found it. After Texas was secured, they who hunted after Oregon were left to beat the bush alone; nay, were hindered. This also would once have been considered as "judicial."

"Here," says he, "we are told that we must be careful and not come in collision with Great Britain about a disputed boundary! But if it were with feeble Mexico that we were about to come into collision, we would then hear no such cautions. There was a question of disputed boundary between this country and Mexico, and those who have a right to know something of the history of that boundary told us that our rights extended only to the Nueces. How did we find the friends of Texas moving on that occasion?

[graphic]

Did they halt for a moment at the Nueces? No, sir; at a single bound they cross the Nueces, and their war-horses prance upon the banks of the Rio del Norte. There was no negotiation then-we took the whole; but when Oregon is concerned, it is all right and proper to give away an empire, if England wills it."

In the House, Mr. Winthrop suggested that, "in arbitration, reference was not necessarily to crowned heads," but the matter might be left to "a commission of able and dispassionate citizens, either from the two countries or the world

at large." Mr. Benton was moderate and wise; his speeches on the Oregon question did much to calm the public mind and prepare for a peaceful settlement of the difficulty. The conduct of Mr. Webster was worthy of the great man who had negotiated the treaty of Washington. He said in the beginning, "Let our arguments be fair; let us settle the question reasonably."

Congress resolved to terminate the joint occupancy. The British government was willing to settle the business by arbitration or direct negotiation. America prefers the latter. Britain sends over her proposition to settle on the 49th degree as a general basis. Mr. Polk referred the whole matter to the Senate, and asked their advice. He had not changed his opinion; not at all. If the Senate did not take the responsibility and advise him to accept the British proposal, he should feel it "his duty to reject the offer." Thus the responsibility was thrown upon the Senate. The proposal was accepted, a treaty was speedily made, and the only remaining cause of contention with England put to rest for ever. The conduct of Mr. Polk, in making such pretensions, and holding out such boasts, on such a subject, was not merely rash, weak, and foolish; it was far worse than that. But for the unexpected prudence of a few men in the Senate, and the aversion of the South to acquire free territory, he would have lit the flames of war anew and done a harm to mankind which no services he could render would ever atone for.

On the 4th of July, 1845, Texas accepted the contract of annexation, and on the 22nd of December, two hundred twenty-five years after the landing of the Pilgrims on Plymouth Rock, the Senate of the United States passed upon the matter finally, and the work was done. However, previous to this event, Mr. Polk had proposed to renew our diplomatic relations with Mexico, which had been broken off. Mexico

« AnkstesnisTęsti »