Richmond Enquirer

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ENQUIRER.

THE VIRGINIA DOCTRINES,

Not Nullification—[No. VIII.]

In the preceding Numbers, I have endeavored to present to the people of this country, who may honor them by their perusal, and more especially to the citizens of this State, the true character of the doctrine of Nullification. In doing so, though candour required, that I should 'nothing extenuate,' I certainly have 'set down naught in malice.' I have been actuated by no personal motive, nor have I been impelled by party feelings. The question is paramount to all these. I have written with a single eye, to what I deem the cause of the country, and all its great, and diversified, and permanent interests, and the preservation of the Constitution and Union of these States.

Parties will exist in all free countries; and, when kept within the boundaries of moderation, and not influenced by selfish objects, they may be even salutary, by keeping up that incessant vigilance, which is the best preservative of freedom. The cause I advocate, is one, calculated to unite patriotic men of all parties—every one, who feels he has a deep interest, in guarding for himself, and transmitting to those who are to come after him, the free institutions which were acquired by the valor and wisdom of our ancestors. Having said thus much, to place myself in a true position on this subject, I proceed to present some other views, which appear to me to be essential to the correct understanding of the circumstances, in which our country will be placed, by the further progress of events, which I fear we may anticipate, and which I most sincerely deprecate.

If the doctrine of Nullification be erroneous in itself if it be calculated to produce such mischievous consequences as I have attributed to it, its evils will not be mitigated but increased, by the time, and the occasion which have been selected for its enforcement. It is well known that the People of Virginia were the earliest opponents of the system of protection (as it is called) which attempts, as in a hot-bed, to give a rapid, and unnatural growth to manufactures, at the expense of the great agricultural and commercial interests of the nation. At one time the New England States, and others, most largely engaged in the navigating and commercial pursuits of the country, were disposed, and did actually unite with us, in resisting the first dawnings of this system. If all the Southern States had been true to themselves, if they had been united, they might have nipped this noxious policy in the bud. But the Statesmen of South Carolina (as can be proved by unquestionable documents) refused their co-operation to oppose, not only the system of legislative protection, but in resisting the gigantic plans of Internal Improvement, which it was endeavored to fix upon the country. It will appear from the proceedings of the Legislature of South Carolina (which I have seen published,) that efforts made at different and successive periods, to resist these schemes, not by violence or unconstitutional measures, but by a simple appeal to public opinion, such as was used by us, in the cases of the Alien and Sedition Laws, were discountenanced, and opposed by many, who are now conspicuous amongst the leaders of Nullification, and were actually defeated by overwhelming majorities. It will appear, too, that they were objected to by them, because they alleged, that these expressions of censure and disapprobation, by the State Legislatures, and appeals to the Co-States, for co-operation in influencing public opinion, were disorganizing, and unconstitutional in their tendency, calculated to rob the General Government of its appropriate powers, and to bring it to the feet of the States.

The consequences of these movements, were the ultimate and unnatural union of the Internal Improvement and Manufacturing parties, to rivet on the nation all the blessings of the American System; the bond of which union was and is, the consciousness that by an inordinate tariff, money can be raised without stint, and with that money improvements can be made to any and every extent.

And yet, our brethren of South Carolina (or some of them) are now invoking our aid and co-operation in defeating the system of protection to manufactures, by measures, which, to be effectual, will not only destroy the Tariff, but with it the Constitution under which we live! If the Tariff was suffered to attain to the unjust and oppressive height to which it was carried, Virginia has not been to blame.—She resisted it in all the stages of its progress. She is still opposed to it. She considers many of the features of the last act on that subject as highly objectionable, and she will never cease in all proper efforts, to remedy the evils of which she complains. But, when is it that we are asked to resort to this desperate remedy of Revolution? Is this the time at which the Tariff has been more oppressive than it has ever been? Has there been no mitigation of its evils? Has nothing happened which indicates a sense of returning justice in the other States? I speak not now of the manufacturers. I do not allude to the large capitalists, who have been fattening on the spoils of Southern industry. I know that they are unwilling to relinquish their hold, and that they resisted even unto death, the mitigation of our grievances. I speak of the change of sentiment which begins to manifest itself, amongst the enlightened and patriotic, in the Eastern portions of the Union.

Every candid mind must admit, that there were many difficulties to be encountered by the Southern members in the last session of Congress. Although the protective system is unjust and oppressive in its character, and violates the spirit of the Constitution, yet laws had passed Congress under which manufactures had been established, and capital to an immense amount had been invested.—And though the existence of these establishments affords no valid reason for giving permanency to the system of protection, yet it should be an inducement with Congress for proceeding with discrimination and a graduated step in the reduction of the duties, so as to avoid bankruptcy and ruin to the manufacturer; and at the same time, as far as practicable, to obtain effectual and ultimate relief to those who suffer under the burthens of unjust imposition. These sentiments appear to have had their influence with the strongest opponents of the Tariff in Congress, in so much, that it is believed that in almost every scheme which was proposed for reducing the Tariff of duties, it was contemplated that the reduction should be gradual. The diversity in the plans consisted in the different degrees of rapidity with which the work was to be accomplished.

Keeping in view these principles, let us examine what was done by Congress on this subject. It is not intended by me, nor is it essential or compatible, with the objects of these Numbers, nor the necessity which I am under of bringing them to a close, that I should enter into many details relative to the Tariff, either of 1828 or 1832: these are under discussion in the public prints by other, and abler hands, and fully developed, in a late statement made under the authority of the Treasury Department of the United States. I shall only speak of results, of a general character, and those very briefly, but sufficiently to shew that important changes and reductions have been made in the system.

After the passage of the Tariff Act of 1832, I received a letter from a member of Congress, intimately acquainted with the finances of the United States, the object of which was to shew what reduction of duties had taken place under that act, as follows:

The amount of duties which accrued in the year 1829,

$21,922,391

1830,

22,697,679

1831,

44,620,070

Average,

22,310,035

From which deduct the reductions of 1830. and those of the act of 1832,

10,310,035

Would make the revenue from customs under the act of 1832,

$12,000,000

Since that time there has been published by the Treasury Department, a comparative statement of the amount of duties, according to the existing rates, and as modified by the act of July 14, 1832, calculated upon the importations of the year ending the 30th of September, 1830, which shews as follows:

Nett Amount of duties according to present rates,

$17,288,645

Amount by the act of 1832,

12,101,567

Nett reduction of duties,

$5,187,078

This statement of the Treasury shews, that the calculation of my correspondent was very nearly accurate as to the sum to which the duties would be reduced, when estimated according to the rates under the act of 1832.

Of the 5,187,078, the reduction from the existing duties, upwards of a million and a half are duties reduced on protected articles. There were also by the act of 1830, 956,121 taken off the protected articles of molasses and salt. The results from these statements are, that the nett duties have been reduced by the acts of 1830 and 1832,

$10,000,000

That the reduction on protected articles, by the acts of 1830 and 1832, will be about

2,500,000

And the actual duties under the act of 1832 will amount to

12,101,000

This statement shews, that very large reductions have been made in the amount of duties, and many of these on protected articles. Some of these reductions made by the act of 1832, will operate beneficially to the Southern people. Amongst these are the reductions on blankets from 35.5 per cent. to 25 per cent. On woollens not exceeding 33 1-3 cents per square yard, from 54.45 per square yard to 5 per cent. On worsted stuff goods, including bombazets, &c. from 36.66 per cent. to 10 per cent., and a large deduction of duties on bar iron. On brown sugar, the duty is reduced from 3 cents a pound to 2 1-2 cents; the duties on coffee and on teas from China are taken off altogether, and on teas from any other place, reduced to 10 cents per pound. Coffee and sugar and teas may be considered, from habit, to have become necessaries of life, and the reduction in the price of them will be found a great relief to the poorer classes. The other items of reduction will be seen by a reference to the statement of the Treasury: they are exceedingly numerous, and will afford more or less relief to the consumer. Still, I do not mean to admit that reductions have been as great as they should have been, or distributed in the most equitable manner. -I believe they have not been, especially in the article of woollen goods. 'But I think what I have said will be sufficient to shew, that a very material and beneficial reduction has been effected. I further am of opinion, that if we persist in using all proper exertions to produce united action amongst the opponents of the protective system, we shall by the exercise of peaceable and constitutional measures, sustained as they will be by the increased force of public opinion, obtain an adjustment of this question, in a way that will satisfy the South. The national debt will be immediately paid off, and we should endeavor to keep down the duties to the amount of the public expences, and limit these as much as possible by the use of the strictest economy.

The conduct of Congress, and especially that of the Southern members, who voted for the act of 1832, has been criticised by some, with great severity. But it appears to me, that this has resulted from not duly considering the situation in which they were placed, nor the motives by which they were actuated. The variety of interests involved in the question, the collision of those interests, and the intrinsic difficulty of changing at once the entire policy of the country, surrounded this subject with great embarrassments. Any person who has attended to the course of the proceedings and debates, must be convinced, that the Southern members who voted for the tariff, did it under a conviction, that the bill, as passed, was the best that could be got at that session of Congress. The objections which have been made to the course pursued by the anti-tariff members who voted for the bill, have struck me with surprize, and are in my estimation unjust and unreasonable. These members saw a spirit in existence, which threatened the peace of the country, unless something could be done. They used every exertion in their power to reduce the tariff as much as possible, and the act which passed, was the best that could be obtained. Is there any one who will assert, that it is not a great deal better act for the country, than that of 1828, even as modified by the act of 1830?

The question was not as to the original formation of the tariff system; the real subject to be voted on, was the choice between the tariff of 1828 and the act of 1832.—One would suppose, that the opponents of the protective system could not have hesitated in deciding. that in a choice between measures, neither of which they approved, it was proper to take that which lightened to a considerable extent the public burthens, though it did not take off as much as it ought to have done. Was it ever heard before, when a law was in existence imposing heavy taxes, that at a subsequent session, members complaining of the tax, ought not to vote to reduce it to a considerable extent. which they could accomplish, because it was not in their power totally to repeal it? The uniform course in such cases is, to get off as much of the tax as can be effected at the time, and at succeeding sessions to reduce it until it is placed on a proper footing. The question really propounded by the bill, was, whether the country should pay duties, amounting to upwards of seventeen millions, or should pay something more than twelve millions; whether we should retain the Tariff of 1828, or accept the modifications of the act of 1832, which not only reduced the amount of duties, but modified them, so as to afford relief to a considerable extent? It is certainly better to bear a light than a heavy burthen; and he who endeavors to lighten that burthen, cannot be said to be friendly to its continuance, because he has taken off a large portion of it. It often happens, in the course of human affairs, that men are subjected to losses and misfortunes; but would it not be a false philosophy which should dictate, that because we cannot repair those losses at once, we should not endeavor to do so by degrees? Surely, it is not justly imputable to those who voted for the act of 1832, that they were friendly to what has been properly called 'the bill of abominations.' because they diminished as many of its evils as their best exertions could accomplish Might they not, with more appearance of plausibility, allege that they who, by their votes, would have permitted the act of 1828 to remain in force, in fact, voted for the continuance of that act? I know that this was not the motive of many of those who voted against the act of 1832; they so voted, because they were opposed to both acts. Some voted against the act of 1832, because they approved the bill of 1828, and wished to retain it—these were the ultra-Nullifiers; but the votes of those who were anti-Tariff, had a tendency to produce the same effect, though they were operated on by an entirely different motive.

It has been objected to the course of those who voted for the act of 1832, that it was a measure which fixed the protective policy on the country. I cannot view it in that light. I cannot consider a bill which goes to make an inroad into that policy, which diminishes so much of its burthens, as could be effected at a particular time, as affirmative of that policy. No act of Congress can fix an unchangeable policy on the country. Their acts are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which never change. What one Congress can do, another can undo; and this Tariff policy has been several times changed, though it must be admitted, generally for the worse. The act of 1830, however, made some modifications for the better. How it can be said, that strenuous efforts to abolish the protective system, which eventuated in only getting rid of part of that system, (for the time being) makes it perpetual, when the law can be acted on at every session of Congress, I am at a loss to conceive.

The only inference deducible from the act is, that not more could be got from the then Congress: but does this amount to proof, that no more can be obtained from their successors? I construe the act very differently. I consider it as evidence of a change in public sentiment on this subject. I consider it as a giving ground in the controversy, and an indication not of permanency, but of change.

The true course is, to follow up these advantages; and public opinion which has effected thus much, will accomplish a great deal more. The ultra-Tariffites who voted against this bill, acted under the idea of preventing any encroachment on their system, and under the belief (probably a correct one) that its safety consisted in its being intangible, as well as permanent. But how can it be said that the opponents of the Tariff who voted for the act of 1832, sanctioned the principle of the protective policy? The reasoning I have employed, shews that a vote to get the best terms they could, at the time, and for the time only, would amount to any thing else than an abandonment of their opinions about the Tariff. But it does not rest on this view alone. It is a well-known fact, that in both Houses of Congress, some of the most distinguished members from the South, who voted for the act of 1832, declared in their places, that in voting for the bill, they did not mean to admit, nor did they admit, that the act had sufficiently reduced, or properly apportioned the duties; that there were many features in it, which they disapproved; that they should never cease their efforts until complete redress should be obtained; and that they voted for the bill because it was better than the act of 1828, and to preserve the peace of the country. When the bill went to the Senate, that body amended it, by striking out or modifying some of the provisions favorable to the South. The House of Representatives would not agree to these amendments, and after a conference, the Senate abandoned them. If these had been persisted in, the bill would have been lost. In the debate in the Senate on the report of their Committee of Conference, great feeling was manifested by the friends of the Tariff, because the conferees of the Senate had given up the amendments of that House. They were accused of having abandoned the interests of some of the branches of domestic industry, and sacrificed the rights of the Senate. It is true, that though this sensitiveness was manifested as to the loss of the amendments of the Senate, it was said that the act of 1832 recognized and established the protective principle. But this was repelled, by the declarations of Mr. Forsyth, Mr. King and other Senators, that the act was only to be understood, so far as the opponents of the American System were concerned, as a choice of evils, and not as preventing future and continued resistance to the system of protection. As further proof; the advocates of the amendments of the Senate, although they asserted that the protective principle was settled by the bill, themselves declared, that it would be in their power, to insist at a future time, on the adoption of the principles, contained in the amendments, or of any other provisions which would go to strengthen the protection of such articles, as they might deem expedient: by these observations clearly shewing, that the law was only the measure of the time, subject to be further modified according to the discretion of Congress.

For, it would be a most extraordinary idea, that this system should be alterable by the friends of protection, and yet irrevocable, as it regarded the friends of a reduction of duties.

I will not go, as I intended, into a particular examination of some other objections, which have been urged by the friends of Nullification against the act of 1832. They have attempted to show, that it was worse than the act of '28.—I have already shown, on the contrary, that it relieves us in a very sensible degree from the burthens of that act; whether we consider the reduction of the rates on some very material articles, such as negro clothing, blankets, iron. &c. &c., or, whether we consider the reduction in the whole amount of the revenue raised. The abolition of the unjust principle of minimums in the duties on woollens, is an important advantage secured to us by the act of 1832, which I have omitted to mention. Pressed by these irresistible views of the subject, the friends of Nullification have had recourse to other objections. They urge in the first place, the increased burthens to the merchant in substituting cash for credit duties, or short for long credits. But this objection has been very much over-rated, in consequence of the egregious error of making the calculation on the whole amount of importations, instead of on the mere amount of duties on those importations. They urge in the 2d place, the increase of the duties which arises from calculating the pound sterling at $4 80, instead of $4 44. But this increase operates on British goods only; and upon them, in a very inconsiderable degree; and is, besides, much more than counterbalanced by the provision of the new act, which does away the addition of the 10 per cent. to the invoice price, before the duties are calculated. I intended also to examine the objection, that the duty falls upon the producer, instead of the consumer, and of course that the Southern States pay a very large share of the duties. But I must leave it to others to expose a theory, which appears to me to carry error upon the very face of it. If this theory be correct; if a tax on imports be tantamount with a tax on exports, what becomes of that clause in the Constitution which declares, that 'No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State?' Why were the authors of the Constitution so very anxious to prohibit all duties on exports, when all their caution is so easily baffled by the duties on imports? But I waive the discussion of this subject—contenting myself with the expression of my astonishment, that any Statesman, and much more, that any of the distinguished Statesmen of S. Carolina, should have fallen into so extraordinary an error.

It would seem, then, that the advocates for Nullification will find no palliation of their course, in the proceedings of the last Congress; but that the mischiefs of their scheme will be aggravated by the reflection, that they meditate a resort to force and violence, when the country has already obtained relief to a considerable extent, and when there is every reason to believe, that it will be made still more effectual.

I have now presented to my fellow-citizens, the views which I intended to take of this interesting subject. I am deeply impressed with its importance, and have acted under a belief, that in times of difficulty and danger, every man is bound to render what aid may be in his power, to his country. I have endeavored to discharge this duty which I deem sacred. I devoutly hope that the evils, which many anticipate, may not happen. I rely much on the good sense and patriotism of my countrymen. The crisis should be met by the government and the people, with firmness, tempered by caution and moderation. It is impossible that the friends of the Union, and the Constitution, can take lot or part in the schemes of Nullification. But let us have patience and forbearance with our countrymen. Time and reflection, and the love of country, may restore the empire of reason, and lead to temperate counsels. But, if our hopes, and the best hopes of humanity, shall be disappointed; if the stars of our political firmament shall, one by one, shoot madly from their spheres, and be extinguished in night, if not in blood; in viewing the desolation which madness has brought upon the land, it will be a melancholy pleasure to any of us, who will be able to pronounce with truth—

'Thou can'st not say I did it.'

AGRICOIA,

Errata in the 7th No. of Agricola.—In the extract from Gen. Washington's Farewell Address, for 'zealous anxiety,' read 'jealous anxiety.'—In the 2d paragraph, for 'convince the most incredulous,' say 'convince the most credulous.'