WEBSTER AND PROTECTION. BY REV. WILL C. WOOD, A. M. Webster was a Cyclopean builder of whatever he purposed and planned to build. He used granite boulders, whether he shaped and piled them into structures, or flung them from his catapults. Plymouth Rock and Bunker Hill were fit places and themes for his massive eloquence. His "Reply to Hayne" is a specimen of his mighty building. In the grand and final debate on protection, before the American people, the next decade, or possibly prolonged through a quarter of a century before general conviction shall have been reached upon this important, this essential question - the protection and prosperity of a nation's industries - the opinions of such a giant mind as Webster's will be worthy of thoughtful consideration. What did Webster build upon the subject of protection? This question, so interesting to Americans, especially at this period when the tariff is coming up for a new study, we will try to study and present. Autobiography is likely to be the truest biography, at least in a sincere person. Webster himself, on several occasions, made statements of a growth, of a change of his opinions on this great subject. One of these statements, in 1838, in reply to John C. Calhoun, is in these frank and plain terms: When He Opposed Protection and Why He Changed. [Reply to Calhoun, U. S. Senate, March 22, 1838.] 'I will state the facts, for I have them in my mind somewhat more fully than the honorable member has himself presented them. Let us begin at the beginning. In 1816, I voted against the tariff law which then passed. In 1824, I again voted against the tariff law which was then proposed, and which passed. A majority of New England votes, in 1824, were against the tariff system. The bill received but one vote from Massachusetts; but it passed. The policy was established. New England acquiesced in it, conformed her business and pursuits to it; embarked her capital, and employed her labor, in manufactures; and I certainly admit, that from that time I have felt bound to support interests thus called into being, and into importance, by the settled policy of the Government. I have stated this often, here, and often elsewhere. "As to the resolutions adopted in Boston, in 1820, and which resolutions he has caused to be read, and which he says he presumes I prepared, I have no recollection of having drawn the resolutions, and do not believe I did. But I was at the meeting, and what I said on that occasion was produced here, and read in the Senate, years ago. "The resolutions, Sir, were opposed to the commencing of a high tariff policy. I was opposed to it, and spoke against it-the city of Boston was opposed to it - the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was opposed to it. Remember, Sir, that this was in 1820. This opposition continued till 1824. The votes all show this. But, in 1824, the question was decided; the Government entered upon the policy; it invited men to embark their property and their means of living in it. Individuals thus encouraged have done this to a great extent; and therefore, I say, so long as the manufactures shall need reasonable and just protection from Government, I shall be disposed to give it to them. What is there, Sir, in all this, for the gentleman to complain of? Would he have us always oppose the policy, adopted by the country, on a great question? Would he have minorities never submit to the will of the majorities? " I remember to have said, Sir, at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, that protection appeared to be regarded as incidental to revenue, and that the incident could not be carried fairly above the principal; in other words, that duties ought not to be laid for the mere object of protection. I believe that if the power of protection be inferred only from the revenue power, the protection could only be incidental. "But I have said in this place before, and I repeat now, that Mr. Madison's publication, after that period, and his declaration that the convention did intend to grant the power of protection, under the commercial clause, placed the subject in a new and a clear light. I will add, Sir, that a paper drawn up apparently with the sanction of Dr. Franklin, and read to a circle of friends in Philadelphia, on the eve of the assembling of the convention, respecting the powers which the proposed new Government ought to possess, shows, perfectly plainly, that in regulating commerce, it was expected Congress would adopt a course which should protect the manufactures of the North. He certainly went into the convention himself under that conviction.* "Well, Sir, and now what does the gentleman make out against me in relation to the tariff? What laurels does he gather in this part of Africa? I opposed the policy of the tariff, until it had become the settled and established policy of the country. I have never questioned the constitutional power of Congress to grant protection, except so far as the remark made in Faneuil Hall goes, which remark respects only the length to which protection might properly be carried, so far as the power is derived from the authority to lay duties on imports. But the policy being established, and a great part of the country having placed vast interests at stake in it, I have not disturbed it; on the contrary, I have insisted that it ought not to be disturbed." * This remarkable paper of nearly 4,000 words is given as an Appendix to Webster's speech at the convention at Andover, November 9, 1843; the reader will find it in Webster's Works, vol. II, 186-189, with a foot note which says: "The paper from which these extracts are given is published in the American Museum, vol. I, p. 432, with the name of Tench Toxe, Esq., as its author. It is also incorporated into his work called "View of the United States of America, p., 4." Webster's reference to this paper and Franklin's connection with it, in this Andover speech, is in this paragraph : "Gentlemen, a native of Massachusetts, certainly inferior to none in sagacity and whose name confers honor upon the whole country, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, in 1787, indicated his sentiments upon these points in a very remarkable manner. The convention to deliberate upon the formation of the Constitution was held in Philadelphia, in May, 1787. Dr. Franklin was, if I remember right, the President, as the office was then called, of Pennsylvania, and was chosen also as a member of the convention. As the delegates were assembling, he invited them to a meeting at his house, on which occasion a paper on this subject was read, which was subsequently printed, and to extracts from which I would call your attention. They will show you what were the sentiments of Dr. Franklin. They prove that far-sighted sagacity, which could discern what was then visible to so few eyes; and that wisdom, which pointed out a course so greatly beneficial." "At the time these opinions were sanctioned by Dr. Franklin, and indeed, till a very recent period, the manufacturers of the country were shop-workmen; tailors, hatters, smiths, shoemakers, and others, who wrought in their own shops; but still the principle is the same as if they were banded into corporations." Extracts from the Paper Approved by Franklin. "Our money absorbed by a wanton consumption of imported luxuries, a fluctuating paper medium substituted in its stead, foreign commerce extremely circumscribed, and a federal government not only ineffective, but disjointed, tell us indeed too plainly, that further negligence may ruin us forever." "The commerce of America, including our exports, imports, shipping, manufactures and fisheries, may be properly considered as forming one interest." A Free Trader's Criticism. A biographical author of our day, a free trader, reckless in historical statement and criticism, ventures these sentences concerning Webster's change of opinion on the tariff. He is speaking of Webster's opposition to Clay's Compromise Act in 1833: "The communication between the different ports of every nation is a business entirely in their power. The policy of most countries has been to secure this domestic navigation to their own people." "Such encouragement to this valuable branch of commerce [fisheries] as would secure the benefits of it to our own people, without injuring our other essential interests, is certainly worth attention. The convention will probably find, on consideration of this point, that a duty or prohibition of foreign articles, such as our own fisheries supply, will be safe and expedient." egulation "Though it is confessed that the United States have full employment for all their citizens in the extensive field of agriculture, yet we have a valuable body of manufacturers already here, and as many more will probably emigrate from Europe, who will choose to continue at their trades, and as we have some citizens so poor as not to be able to effect a little settlement on our waste lands, there is a real necessity for some wholesome general reg regulations on this head."" "Another inducement to some salutary regulations on this subject will be suggested by considering some of our means of conducting manufactures. Unless business of this kind is carried on, certain great natural powers of the country will remain inactive and useless. Our numerous mill-seats, for example, by which flour, oil, paper, snuff, gun-powder, iron-work, woollen cloths, boards and scantling, and some other articles, are prepared, or perfected, would be given by Providence in vain." "The encouragement to agriculture afforded by some manufactories is a reason of solid weight in favor of pushing them with industry and spirit." "A further encouragement to manufactures will result from improvements and discoveries in agriculture. There are many raw materials that could be produced in this country on a large scale, which have hitherto been very confined." "If the facts and observations in the preceding part of this paper are admitted to be true and just, and if we take into consideration with them the acknowledged superiority of foreign commerce and the fisheries over our manufactories, we may come to the following conclusions: "That the United States of America cannot make a proper use of the natural advantages of the country, nor promote her agriculture and other lesser interests, without manufactures; that they cannot enjoy the other attainable benefits of commerce and the fisheries, without some general restrictions and prohibitions affecting foreign nations." "It will not be amiss to draw a picture of our country, as it would really exist under the operation of a system of national laws formed upon these principles. While we indulge ourselves in the contemplation of a subject at once so interesting and dear, let us confine ourselves to substantial facts, and avoid those pleasing delusions into which the spirits and feelings of our countrymen have too long misled them. "Webster objected to the horizontal rate, and to an attempt to pledge future Congresses. He was now reduced, after having previously made some of the most masterly arguments ever made for free trade, to defend protection by such devices as he could. Now he derided Adam Smith and the other economists. He first paltered with his convictions on the tariff, and broke his moral stamina by so doing. Many of the people who have been so much astonished at his sudden apostasy on slavery would understand it more easily if their own judgment was more open to appreciate his earlier apostasy on free trade."[Wm. G. Sumner, "Life of Andrew Jackson." This is a tissue of misrepresentation. Luther might as well be accused of insincerity in the great religious change of his "In the foreground we should find the mass of our citizens the cultivators, (and what is happily for us, in most instances, the same thing), the independent proprietors, of the soil. Every wheel would appear in motion that could carry forward the interests of this great body of people, and bring into action the inherent powers of the country. A portion of the produce of our land would be consumed in the families or employed in the business of our manufacturers, a further portion would be applied in the sustenance of our merchants and fishermen and their numerous assistants, and the remainder would be transported by those that could carry it at the lowest freight (that is, with the smallest deduction from the aggregate profits of the business of the country) to the best foreign markets. "On one side we should see our manufacturers encouraging the tillers of the earth by the consumption and employment of the fruits of their labors, and supplying them and the rest of their fellow citizens with the instruments of their occupations, and the necessaries and conveniences of life, in every instance where it could be done without injuriously and unnecessarily increasing the distress of commerce, the labors of the husbandmen, and the difficulties of changing our native wilds into scenes of cultivation and plenty. Commerce, on the other hand, attentive to the general interests, would come forward with offers to range through foreign climates in search of those supplies which the manufacturers could not furnish but at too high a price, or which nature has not given us at home, in return for the surplus of those stores that had been drawn from the ocean or produced by the earth." "The foundations of national wealth and consequence are so firmly laid in the United States, that no foreign power can undermine or destroy them. But the enjoyment of these substantial blessings is rendered precarious by domestic circumstances. Scarcely held together by a weak and half-formed federal constitution, the powers of our national government are unequal to the complete execution of any salutary purpose, foreign or domestic." "I have ventured to hint at prohibitory powers, but shall leave that point, and the general power of regulating trade, to those who may undertake to consider the political objects of the convention, suggesting only the evident propriety of enabling Congress to prevent the importation of such foreign commodities as are made from our own raw materials. When any article of that kind can be supplied at home, upon as low terms as it can be imported, a manufacture of our own produce, so well established, ought not by any means to be sacrificed to the interests of foreign trade, or subjected to injury by the wild speculations of ignorant adventurers." |
