deemed its abolishment essential to their interests. Your committee have been particular on this point in order that you may distinctly understand that the doctrine of the unconstitutionality of the tariff was never heard of until brought into being by the imaginary interests of the South. Fortunately for the country, our Chief Magistrates have all expressed themselves clearly on this point, leaving no doubt in their views of its constitutionality. Your committee are indebted to a speech recently delivered in Congress by Mr. Slade of Vermont, for a collection of the opinions here inserted. In his message to Congress of the 8th Jan., 1790, and the first he delivered, President Washington says: "The safety and interests of the people require that they should promote such manufactures as tend to render them independent for essential, particularly military, supplies." This portion of the message was referred by Congress to the Secretary of the Treasury with the request that he would prepare and report a plan for the protection of domestic manufactures, conformably to the views of the President in his speech to both houses of Congress.

Congress at frequent periods afterwards confirmed these views by maturing the system thus started.

In his second message to Congress, Dec. 15th, 1802, President Jefferson says: "To cultivate peace, and maintain commerce and navigation in all their lawful enterprises, to foster our fisheries as nurseries of navigation and for the nurture of man, and PROTECT THE MANUFACTURES adapted to our circumstances," &c., &c., by continuing to make these the rule of our actions we shall endear to our countrymen the prin

ciples of their Constitution." But Jefferson goes even further than this, for in his message of Dec. 2d, 1806, when there was a prospect of a surplus revenue, resulting from the existing import duties, he says: "To what object shall these surpluses be appropriated after the discharge of the public debt? Shall we suppress the IMPOST and give that ADVANTAGE TO FOREIGN OVER DOMESTIC MANUFACTURES," &c. On a few articles he thinks the impost might be removed, but with regard to the great mass he says, "that the patriotism of the people would prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the Constitutional enumeration of Federal power." President Madison, after recommending in his primary message this subject to the consideration of Congress, speaks distinctly of the policy for the protection of domestic manufactures in his messages of 1811 and 1815. In one of them he says: "But there is no object which can enter with greater force into the deliberations of Congress than a consideration of the means to PRESERVE and PROMOTE the MANUFACTURES which have sprung into existence and attained an unparalleled maturity throughout the United States during the period of the European wars. This source of national independence and wealth I anxiously recommend therefore to the prompt and constant guardianship of Congress." The sentiments of President Monroe are very fully expressed, throughout his administration; in his inaugural address, 4th March, 1817, he uses this language: "Our manufactures will likewise require the systematic and

fostering care of the Government; possessing as we do the raw material, the fruit of our own soil and industry, we ought not to depend in the degree we have done on supplies from other countries. While we are thus dependent, the sudden event of war unsought and unexpected cannot fail to plunge us into the most serious difficulties; it is important, too, that the capital which nourishes our manufactures should be domestic, as its influence in that case, instead of exhausting, as it may do, in foreign hands, would be felt advantageously on agriculture and every other branch of industry. Equally important is it to provide at home a market for our raw materials, as by extending the competition it will enhance the price and protect the cultivation against the casualties incident to foreign markets." This has been said to be the best summary of the arguments in favor of a protective tariff anywhere to be found, and is here inserted as a fair exponent of the sentiments of President Monroe on this subject, frequently afterwards inculcated. President Adams' opinions are well known and were energetically and properly expressed on all suitable occasions during his administration. But one short extract need be given here, and that is contained in his last message to Congress of the 2d Dec., 1828, in which he says: "The great interests of our agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing nation are so linked in union together, that no permanent cause of prosperity to any one of them can operate without extending its influence to the others. All the interests are alike under the PROTECTING POWER of the LegiSLATIVE AUTHORITY, and the duties of the representative bodies are to concentrate them in harmony together."

President Jackson, in his message of the 17th Dec., 1830, says: "The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States; the right to adjust these duties with a view to the encouragement of domestic branches of industry is so completely incidental to that power, that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one without the other. The States have delegated their whole authority over imposts to the general government without limitation or restriction, saving the very inconsiderable reservations under the inspection laws. This authority having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them, and consequently if it be not possessed by the General Government, it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry and to counteract the most selfish and destructive policy that might be adopted by foreign nations. This surely cannot be the case; this indispensable power thus surrendered by the States must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress. In this conclusion I am confirmed as well by the opinions of Pres'ts Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people."

These quotations are somewhat tedious, but your committee deem it expedient to be thus particular for the accomplishment of two objects: FIRST, that the basis of our present Constitution is the protection of

home industry, and that a protective tariff is constitutional in the explicitly declared opinions of all our Presidents; and SECONDLY, that this grand conservative principle of our government is not a party measure. There can be no doubt but that it would be gratifying to any party to make it a distinct party question, because it would afford immense capital for electioneering purposes. A measure in which it is well known that a large and overwhelming majority of the voters of these United States are deeply and personally interested, a doctrine to which all the Presidents have subscribed and the most distinguished men of our country have given their cordial support, might well be coveted by any party.

The tariff question has been discussed of late generally under two heads:

Ist. Its constitutionality.

2d. Its expediency.

The constitutional objections, as before remarked, have been alleged from the South almost exclusively, but in consequence of a very imperfect knowledge of its legitimate effects, there are many persons, chiefly consumers, in the Northern and Middle States, who are opposed to a protective tariff, from the mistaken opinion that, because they are not producers, their interests will be injuriously affected. This opinion is very natural to those who do not view the subject in all its comprehensive parts. There is no subject, perhaps, in the grand circle of disputed points on which human intellect spends its powers, that admits of more speculative theories or vague and uncertain conclusions than the much talked of science of political economy; it is a field in which smatterers may revel, and