H. OF R.] Duties on Imports. [APRIL, 1789. small forges in their chimney corners, and in win- this manufacture. Again: from the situation of ter, and on evenings when little other work could the manufacturer in Europe, and the one in be done, great quantities of nails were made even America, he concluded this encouragement was by children; perhaps enough might be manufac-necessary. In Europe the artisan is driven to tured in this way to supply the continent. These labor for his bread; stern necessity, with her rod people take the rod iron of the merchant, and re- of iron, compels his exertions; but in America turn him nails; in consequence of this easy mode invitation and encouragement are necessary; of barter, the manufacture is prodigiously great. without them the infant manufacture droops, and But these advantages are not exclusively in the its patron seeks, with success, a competency from hands of the people of Massachusetts; the busi- our cheap and fertile soil. ness can be prosecuted in a similar manner in every State exerting equal industry. He hoped the article would remain in the bill. Mr. FITZSIMONS was not very solicitous about the duty. He thought the manufacturers would have but little to apprehend if the Legislature Mr. SHERMAN. The gentlemen object to these should decide against them; for the fact was that articles because they are necessary, and cannot nails were at this moment made cheaper, and, in be furnished in quantities equal to the demand; the opinion of some judges, better than those but I am of opinion, if they cannot now be had in coming from England. Before the Revolution, such plenty as is wished for, they may in a very the people in America were not permitted to short time. Every State can manufacture them, erect slitting mills. They now have several, and although they cannot make nail rods. Connecti- are independent of all the world for the materials cut has excellent iron ore, of which bars are made, necessary for carrying on the business in the most but she gets nail rods from this city; others can extensive manner. So far as the duty respected do the like, and until all the States can supply the manufacture in Pennsylvania, it was his opinthemselves by their own industry, for which pur-ion that refusing it would do no material injury, pose they have every thing at their hands, it may not be amiss for the Government to get some revenue from the consumption of foreign nails. Mr. TUCKER judged, from what was said of the little expense and great facility of manufacturing nails, that it stood in no need of legislative assistance. Why lay a duty on foreign nails, when they cannot rival you if you make them as good and as cheap? Will not the five per cent. duty, with freight and shipping charges, be sufficient encouragement? He thought it would, and therefore was averse to any other duty. He observed also, that it would burden ship-building, and was, consequently, against those employed in that busi ness. Mr. PARTRIDGE observed that, to the eastward, no spikes at all were imported, and few or no nails, except of some particular kinds. If spikes were not imported to the southward, he would join gentlemen in striking them out. and he believed it would draw but little money into the treasury; yet, nevertheless, he was willing to allow a small one, because it conformed to the policy of the States, who thought it proper, in this manner, to protect their manufactures. He believed neither spikes nor nails for shipbuilding were imported; they were generally large and heavy, and were made in the country, according to the builder's orders. On the motion, nails and spikes were taxed one cent per pound, but tacks and brads were struck out. On salt, per bushel the burden sustained by those who live remote from the sea-shore sufficiently unequal. I hope, therefore, the committee will not agree to it. Mr. BURKE.-I need not observe to the committee that this article is a necessary of life, nor that black cattle, sheep, and horses, do not thrive without it; on these considerations alone I should oppose it; but I know likewise that it is a tax particularly odious to the inhabitants of South Carolina and Georgia, to whom the price is Mr. AMES thought it proper to add a few more already oppressively great. The back parts of observations. The committee were already in- that State are obliged to haul all they consume formed of the flourishing condition of the manu- two, three, or four hundred miles in wagons, for facture, but they ought not to join the gentleman which they pay about seven shillings sterling. from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) in concluding Add this to the first cost, which is about one shilthat it did not therefore deserve legislative pro-ling, though sometimes more, and you will find tection. The commerce of America, particularly the southern parts, had, by the force of habit and English connexions, been setting strong upon the British coasts; it required the aid of the General Mr. LAWRENCE hoped a duty would be laid on Government to divert it to a more natural course. the article; it was in general use, and the conGood policy and sound wisdom demonstrated the sumption so regular, that it was much to be depropriety of an interchange between the different pended upon as a source of revenue; but the duty States in the Union: to procure this political ought not to be so high as to make it oppressive. good some force was necessary. Laying a small The additional burden to those who live remote duty on foreign manufactures might induce, from from the coast will not be unreasonable; they motives of interest as well as inclination, one fel-will pay no greater impost than every other class low-citizen to barter with, or buy of another, what he had been long accustomed to take from strangers. Allowing this remark its due weight, he had no doubt but that the committee would concur in laying a small protecting duty in favor of of consumers, and the tax mixing with the price will be less sensibly felt. The remote settler does not pay on other articles equal to the inhabitant who resides near the Atlantic. He does not consume the linen and cloth of Europe, the tea of the East, the sugar and spirits of the West Indies, in any thing like such proportion. Can he be said then to be oppressed with a small and equal tax upon salt, an article which is consumed equally in the interior and exterior country? He certainly cannot. But there is one observation which may be urged as an objection; being aware of this, he would propose, at a proper time, the allowance of a drawback upon all salted fish and provision exported. He moved to impose a duty of six cents per bushel. Mr. TUCKER felt an aversion to laying a duty on salt from several motives. It would bear harder upon the poor than upon the rich. The true principle of taxation is, that every man contribute to the public burdens in proportion to the value of his property. But a poor man consumes as much salt as a rich man. In this point of view, it operates as a poll-tax, the most odious of all taxes; it does not operate simply as a poll-tax, but is heavier on the poor than on the rich, because the poor consume greater quantities of salted provision than the rich. Nor does it bear equally upon every part of the country; for it is consumed in a greater proportion by cattle at a distance than by those near the sea-shores. Moreover, the duty collected on the importation will enter into the price of the article, and the countryman will pay the retailer a profit on the tax, perhaps of four times its amount. For which reasons, he was more averse to this article being taxed than any other whatsoever. [H. of R. it not be wise, therefore, to let the administration of your power slide gently along, inoffensive to so great a body? Let them become reconciled to your views before you stretch out the hand of oppression. Throw salt, if it must be taxed, into the mass of articles, and lay your per cent. a little higher to make up the deficiency. This will be less odious, and, on the score of revenue, amount to the same thing. I consider taxes in this point of view: the exigencies of the Union call for a sum of money annually; it must be raised in some way by a tax on the community. It is no matter to the individual whether he pays his proportion by a tax on salt, or any other article he consumes, but the wisdom of Government will direct which. The money must be had from some source, and may be taken from any; yet prudence will dictate to obtain it by means the least odious, the least unpopular, and most pleasing. All taxes, I admit, are odious; but they are comparatively so. Let, therefore, this article be left out of the enumeration, and do not apply to it until other means have failed, because it would be a very partial and most odious tax. Mr. MOORE observed upon the inequality, as it respected the consumption of the article by cattle; some States raised more than others, consequently they consumed more; some parts of the same State were in a like situation. The people on the sea-coast pursued merchandise; those in the back parts raised cattle, which he was bold to say consumed five times as much salt as the lower Mr. ScoTT declared himself decisively against country, and would pay the tax in the same prothe duty, although he admitted a most certain portion. It has been said, that if they pay more revenue could be drawn from it, on account of its on salt, they pay less on other articles-agreed to. universal demand and utility. But he did not But there are a number more which may perhaps think these considerations alone amounted to a unequally affect them: yet it is an argument of sufficient reason why this necessary article should small weight to say, because we in large combe taxed; if they did, the argument would prove mercial cities are regulated in a sumptuary mantoo much, it would extend to the use of water and ner for indulging in luxuries, you who are obliged common air. He presumed the old arguments to retrench them shall pay a tax upon the necesoften urged by gentlemen in favor of manufac-saries of life. In short, the tax appeared to him tures did not apply, because no encouragement not only unpopular, but unjust likewise, and he would be sufficient to establish it. would not agree to it. From the nearest part of the Atlantic coast. Mr. SMITH (of South Carolina.)—If any further where salt can be obtained, to the next nearest in arguments were necessary to convince the comthe Western territory, is a distance of eight hun-mittee of the impropriety of the present measure, dred or one thousand miles: all the intermediate more might be urged, though what has been said space must be supplied from one or the other; is sufficient to demonstrate that it will be attended over the mountains it must be carried on pack-with a great deal of dissatisfaction, and in proporhorses. This of itself is a sufficient tax upon the consumer; how oppressive then must it be to increase the burden. tion to that dissatisfaction will be the danger of having your laws contemned, opposed, or neglected in the execution. It is well known, that howIt has been mentioned that this tax will be an ever small the duty, it will furnish a pretext to odious one. I have no pretension to the gift of the seller to extort a much greater sum from the prophecy; but I am willing to let my name go to consumer. Another observation. It is believed posterity in giving it as my opinion, that, if you lay a high duty on such an indispensable necessary of life, it will be bad policy, and go nigh to shipwreck the Government. I have reasons of a political nature to support my opinion; but I do not think I should be justified in mentioning them at present; but I will venture to say this much, that I fear it will have a tendency to shake the foundation of your system, which I look upon as the only anchor of your political salvation. Will that the inhabitants of the interior part of South Carolina are opposed to the new Government; it will be a melancholy circumstance to entangle ourselves, at this time, among the shoals of discontent; yet no stronger impulse could be given for opposition than the proposed tax: conceiving it in this light, he was against the measure. Mr. Scort added, that the price of salt where he lived was four dollars a bushel, the country was settled three or four hundred miles beyond him, and he supposed the price there to be greater. Mr. LAWRENCE thought it would be better for the committee to take time to examine what had been urged against the tax, and as it was the usual time for adjourning, the committee might rise and defer their decision till to-morrow. Whereupon the committee rose, and the House adjourned. FRIDAY, April 17. [APRIL, 1789. BENJAMIN CONTEE, from Maryland, appeared fold. We must also take into contemplation the and took his seat. DUTIES ON IMPORTS. The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, Mr. PAGE in the Chair; the question of laying a duty on salt recurred. Mr. LAWRENCE.-I had the honor yesterday of delivering my sentiments in favor of this duty; but observations were made by gentlemen from different parts of the house against the measure. The principal objection was, that the tax was an odious one. It was admitted by a worthy gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. SCOTT) that all taxes are odious; this is certainly true, for the people are not pleased with paying them; nothing but necessity will induce a Government to have recourse to them. It is also true, that some are more odious than others. From what has been said, it may be seen that a tax on salt is not so in general, but only in particular parts of the Union; the remote inhabitants, it is said, will be dissatisfied, because it increases the price of the commodity, and they use more of it than others. It is mentioned as partaking of the nature of a capitation tax, but this kind of tax is odious, more from its manner of operation than its nature. We find in some States where it is in use, the people live easy under it; for example, it is not complained of in some of the Eastern States. We have not much to apprehend from a tax on salt in this State; the people are satisfied with it; at least the complaints are neither so loud or so general, as to make us apprehensive for the existence of the Government we live under. Its operations, though the contrary was predicted, go on with as much ease since an impost has been laid, as they did before. I believe, likewise, we have only to try the experiment, to be convinced it would have a similar effect throughout the Continent; for I cannot persuade myself that it is generally looked upon in so odious a light as some gentlemen imagine. It was also said, that the tax would be unequal, and the objects of inequality were two. The poor man would pay as much as the rich; but this is not the case; the rich are generally more profuse in their consumption than the poor; they have more servants and dependents also to consume it; consequetly the whole amount of their consumption must be in a proportionable ratio. The other inequality was its different operation in different States, and even in different parts of the same State. On exami nation, this objection also may be obviated. Gentlemen tell you the high price of this article at three or four hundred miles distance; is it not hence presumable that there they consume as little as possible, while along the sea-coasts they use it with a liberal hand? But whether it be consumed on the sea-coast, or on the western waters, the tax is the same, or but inconsiderably augmented; for I take it the great addition which is made is in consequence of the charge of carriage. I cannot, therefore, see by what magic gentlemen will prove to you that it is increased four or fivenumber of persons who consume it; here it will appear, that the weight of population is much greater on the sea-coast than in the western parts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Carolina, consequently the consumption must be greater. It is said the argument I urged was not a good one, because it proved too much, that an article of general consumption was not the best article for taxation; now, I believe the maxim is just, and when examined will be found so. Taxes, to be just, should affect all, and equally affect them, and not be left to fall partially upon a few. This is more the case with salt than any other article which has yet been taxed, and I believe is the only tax which will get at the pockets of those to whom it is said to be obnoxious. But how comes it, if the other articles are equally consumed in the back countries, that gentlemen did not urge the argument of expense on transportation, and the pretext that a tax would furnish the seller to extort from the consumer? I believe gentlemen will find it difficult to point out any kind of support which they give to Government, if this duty shall be refused; yet it was hinted that the Government would be endangered if they were called upon for this. We are now entering on a subject of a delicate nature, and I wish to treat it as such: but I will not suppose the Government hazarded by making a revenue law that is right and justifiable on general principles; if it is, upright men may be willing to risk the consequences. The inhabitants of every part may find in this law some article more burdensome on them than that particular article is on every other part; but yet the aggregate paid by them toward the exigencies of Government is equalled by a disproportion in some other article. If I did not think the object before the committee of great importance, I would not consume their time in contending for it; but, relying on it as an equitable and very productive fund, I must trespass a few words further. This article is of general consumption; perhaps it may be averaged at three bushels to a family annually; the tax on this will be light, none can be oppressed, and yet it will bring into the treasury a very large sum. If any family consumes more and expends it upon their cattle, it ought to be considered that it enters into the price of the cattle when brought to market, and ultimately falls upon the consumer. Mr. MOORE had said yesterday, that the duty would operate unequally; he thought so then, and had not yet altered his opinion, because the back inhabitants consumed five times as much as those on the sea-coast; he had expressed no apprehension that the duty would endanger the Government. [H. of R. now proposed. If, then, there be no particular objection on the footing of justice, it must be an argument in favor of the policy; for it cannot be presumed that good policy deviates from the principles of justice. There may exist prejudices against measures founded in the strictest justice and soundest policy; but certainly they will flee before reason and conviction. While in search of revenue, for such essential and important purposes as urge us at present, we cannot discriminate, and spare one part of the community. This would be unjust, and excite those complaints which some gentlemen seem to fear. It has been said, by the enemies of this Government, that its administration would immediately betray the features of tyranny and oppression. It was likewise said, that its operations would be gentle and insinuating at first, in order to obtain the confidence of the people to enable it to supplant the State Governments. Would not a discriminating policy seem to make good these charges? Let us then avoid it with caution, and endeavor to distribute the public burden with a just and equal hand. In short, under whatever point of view you consider this tax, I think it will be seen to be improper to expunge it. I would make it moderate, and, in so doing, it cannot be unjust, nor can the popular clamor be excited. Mr. MADISON. From the nature of the arguments made use of on this occasion, it is necessary to proceed with some circumspection, though not to depart from that policy which can be justified by reason and experience. I am willing to trust a great deal to the good sense, justice, and penetration of our fellow-citizens for support; and though I think it might be just to lay a considerable duty generally upon imported articles, yet it would not be prudent or politic, at this time, to do so. Let us now proceed to consider the subject before us, on the principles of justice and principles of policy. In the first point of view we may consider the effeet it will have on the different descriptions of people throughout the United States, I mean different descriptions, as they relate to property. I readily agree that, in itself, a tax would be unjust and oppressive that did not fall on the citizens according to their degree of property and ability to pay it; were it, therefore, this single article which we were about to tax, I should think it indispensable that it should operate equally, agreeably to the principle I have just mentioned. But in order to determine whether a tax on salt is just or unjust, we must consider it as part of a system, and judge of the operation of this system as if it were but a single article; if this is found to be unequal, it is also unjust. Now, examine the preceding articles. and consider how they affect the rich, and it will be found that they bear more than a just proportion according to their ability to pay; by adding this article, we shall rather equalize the disproportion than increase it, if it is true, as has been often mentioned, that the poor will contribute more of this tax than the rich. When we consider the tax as it operates on the different parts of the United States, dividing the whole into the northern, middle, and southern districts, it will be found that they contribute also in proportion to their numbers and ability to pay. If there be any distinction in this respect, it will be perceived to be in favor of the southern division, because the species of property there consists of mouths that consume salt in the same proportion as the whites; but they have not this property in the middle and northern districts to pay taxes for. The most important objection is, that the western part of our country uses more salt than any other; this makes it unequal; but, considered as a part of a Mr. WHITE, after some doubts, had made up system, the equilibrium is restored, when you his mind against the article being taxed. We find this almost the only tax they will have to ought to pass no law that is unjust or oppressive pay. Will they contribute any thing by con- in its nature, or which the people may consider suming imported spirits? Very little. Yet this as unjust or oppressive; a duty on salt would be is a principal source of revenue; they will sub- considered in that light by a great number. Our sist upon what they procure at home; and will constituents expect some ease and relief, particuthey submit to a direct tax, if they murmur at so larly the poorer sort of people. It seems to be light a one on salt? Will they submit to an ex-granted, from all that has been said, that it will cise? If they would, I trust it is not in the contemplation of gentlemen to propose it. Certainly it requires but time for reflection to discover, in every point of view, the justice of the measure Mr. HUNTINGTON had no apprehension of danger arising from the odiousness of the tax in the State he came from; his constituents would inquire the reasons why it was imposed, and when they found it was from principles of justice, and to promote the public_good, they would pay it without reluctance. From the nature of the article, he looked upon it as the means of a certain and sure revenue, and if it was not now used as such, it would be done on some future occasion with considerable advantage. In France, a duty was paid equal to two shillings and six-pence per bushel, which is more than the value of the article; in England, the duty was considerable, but cannot say how much. A duty of six cents per bushel here would yield a great revenue, and no man would feel the oppression. If it is alleged that it will affect the husbandman or grazier with large herds of cattle, are they not rich-at least rich enough to pay six cents on a bushel of salt? Certainly such a tax is too trifling to be much complained of, even if it was unequal; but I think it has been clearly demonstrated to be otherwise. affect them in a manner which no other tax can, though, it is said, they will not be affected beyond their proportion, as they pay nothing for the consumption of wine, spirits, &c., because they use H. OF R.] none. One reason which influenced the com-dred miles from this place, and see nine out of mittee to tax those articles, was to abolish the use ten of its inhabitants dress in European clothes. of them altogether, or prevent the excesses they I can there procure wines, both in quality and occasioned. Now will you urge in argument for quantity, equal to those on the seacoast. If the taxing the poor, that they already practise that people do not consume as much there, it arises temperance which you desire to bring universally merely from their inability to buy and pay for it; about? All taxes, it is admitted, are odious, and but they consume in proportion to their property some merely from opinion; but if they are odious and wealth. Now, if the position, that people from opinion, they ought to be carefully guarded ought to pay taxes in proportion to their property against, especially if the Government depends be true, and I believe it is, and the inhabitants of upon opinion for support. The present Constitu- the Western country contribute equally their part tion was adopted by a small majority in some on all which has been laid, it remains only to inStates, and in the opinion of many is not so favor- quire how the duty proposed will operate. I need able to the rights of the citizens as could be de-not repeat the arguments already used to show its sired; wisdom and prudence will, therefore, teach inequality. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. us not to exercise powers under it which opinion MADISON) has conceded the point. He has said, may judge oppressive. Considering the political that if we were laying this particular tax, it state of Kentucky and the Western country, we would be an improper one because of its ineought to be careful how we give them umbrage; quality. Now, then, I think it does come before means at this moment are using to detach them us upon its own bottom; and as it is an unequal from the Union, and place them in a different one, so is it an improper one. What is unjust is situation. This may be promoted in some degree impolitic. On the principles of justice and policy, by the slightest tax: for there are those who then, the measure ought to be rejected. I hope would gladly seize any advantage arising from a the opposition, which is apprehended, may not discontent among our citizens. It cannot be take place against your Government, as the wis thought that this duty would be so productive as dom and patriotism of this body will never, I am to warrant the risk we run in opposing the public satisfied, furnish their enemies with weapons of opinion. destruction. Mr. SCOTT.-I grant that the policy of this Mr. FITZSIMONS felt hurt by some of the argumeasure is mere matter of opinion, as its advo-ments he had heard; whilst the Congress of the cates have stated; it cannot be otherwise, because United States continue to act upon principles of we have had no experience of it, and every gen- justice, they have little to apprehend from their tleman will form that opinion from facts that have enemies. He hoped never to see any other prinfallen under his knowledge. Now, from the facts ciple govern them; it was paying their constituents known to me, I doubt its policy exceedingly. I a bad compliment to say, that they would oppose would, therefore, be clear for passing it over for measures founded on such a basis; for his part, the present. Perhaps my local situation gives he did not think so little of their good sense and me an opportunity to know these facts better than discernment. If gentlemen had proved that the most members on this floor, and this knowledge proposed measure was founded in injustice, they has prevailed with me to be of opinion, that the would have some pretext for exciting alarms, but present measure would have very destructive he did not think they had done this; he thought consequences. I mean to give this opinion to the the contrary position was better established. At committee; they will make such use of it as they first view, it must be discernible that this article please; but before I proceed further, I will just is of such a nature as to insure the collection of remark, that I do not think the reasons on the the duty; it is too bulky for smuggling; the avepoint of justice well founded. I think they have rage quantity which a family would consume taken for granted facts that do not exist. It was could not exceed five bushels annually; this, at supposed that the inhabitants of the back country six cents per bushel, is less than one-third of a did not use their proportion of the other articles dollar: and are gentlemen serious when they which were taxed. Are we to believe that a bot-talk of this sum being so oppressive as to endantle of Madeira, or of rum, never crossed the Alleghany mountains, or went more than fifty or one hundred miles from the seacoast? Sir, on the banks of the Ohio, I must say, though I'am sorry to say it, there exists as great a rage for every species of luxury which the people can lay their hands on, as there does even in the city of New York; and how should it be otherwise? Have they not the example from yourselves? If a countryman comes among you for a time, is he not initiated and accustomed to your manners? Will he not too often carry home your fashions and your vices? Certainly he will. Then why should gentlemen suppose that these people do not contribute their proportion on other articles? I can sit at a door in a country village, five hun ger the Government? He knew very well that this ground had been trodden by almost every State Legislature on the Continent, and address enough had been used to make some think it an unpopular measure, but he could never see a reason for this opinion. It had been urged that we had better defer the subject under discussion for the present, and take it up hereafter. One reason why he was in favor of high and general duties, in the first instance, was to avoid the imputation which had been laid against the administration of this Government by its opponents; he would not attempt to deceive the people as to its powers; if a tax on salt will be right some time hence, it is right now. Mr. SMITH, of Maryland, said, they collected |