than rum, yet there was no adverse argument urged against them: therefore I suppose the committee were satisfied with them as they stand. Mr. AMES. The gentleman from Pennsylvania set out with informing us that nothing new had or could be offered on the subject; yet you found, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman had a good deal to say, which I thought new and much to the purpose. As to applying the observation to myself, in common with the advocates for low duties, I shall decline it, only noting that the long discussion which the subject has had would restrain me from rising on this occasion more than any remarks of the nature made by the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and Connecticut; but I am actuated by higher motives than a regard to my own feelings, otherwise I should come reluctantly forward to press arguments which the committee may be fatigued with listening to. But I feel such strong impressions on my mind, with regard to the effects our impost law is likely to produce, that I cannot pass it over with a silent vote. I must admonish gentlemen that the events which may result from our present measures are of the most alarming nature. When I was up before, I endeavored to show the degree of power the Government could exercise without being charged with an ill administration.

I shall now proceed briefly to consider the arguments used in reply to what has been advanced by the advocates for moderate duties. I believe it is a good rule to judge of the strength of a cause by the arguments used to defend it; and here I must take the liberty of saying that the gentlemen on the other side of the question have adduced not one to support their opinion that has carried conviction to my mind. I consider that, by a decision of this question, the good which the new Government is expected to produce may be rendered problematical. Though I am fully impressed with the necessity there is for revenue to supply the public expenses, yet I cannot believe we are likely to obtain more by heavy duties than by temperate ones, and it is to this point that my arguments tend. I do not believe that in either case we shall procure fully sufficient to supply the public demands. If we have to procure eight millions of dollars, I venture to say not near the half could be raised by an impost system; but admitting that it could by a high scale of duties for the first year, it could not be done in the subsequent ones. Now, I regard this as a permanent system of revenue rather than a productive one; if it is laid high, you will find your collection annually diminish. Now, will any Government take such measures in gathering in its harvest as to ruin the soil? Will they rack-rent their tenants in such a manner as to deprive them of the means of improving the estate? Such can never be the policy of this enlightened country. We know, from the fundamental principles of republics, that public opinion gives the tone to every action of the Government-the laws ought to correspond with the habits and manners, nay, I may almost add, wishes of the people.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we are told a tax upon

[MAY, 1789.

rum is popular; I will agree with the gentlemen; but still a high duty will induce people to run it, and though the consumer may pay the tax without complaining, yet it will go into the pockets of individuals who defraud your revenue. Gentlemen have complained that we do not offer a substitute for what we find fault with. I will · endeavor to explain a system I would place in the room of this. I would reduce the duties generally so low as to hold out no encouragement to smuggling; in this case it is more than probable the amount of the impost at the end of one year would exceed the collection under the present rate. By giving this proof of moderation and wisdom, we should obtain the public favor and confidence; the Government would be acquiring strength, its movements would be more certain, and we could in every subsequent year extend the system and make the whole productive; then it would be in the power of Government, by aids, to improve our agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. Our imports are now very great; by the increase of our commerce we shall probably find our revenue produce twice as much seven years hence as it can be expected to do at present.

The duty on West India rum is moderate and popular, say gentlemen; it is not the interest of Massachusetts that it should be reduced; so I am arguing against the interest of the State I have the honor to represent. The higher the duty on West India rum, the more country rum will be used; but I should sacrifice the sacred trust deposited in my hands if I were to be actuated by a local motive of this nature. The higher the duty, the more officers must be multiplied, the more guards must be employed, the more troops must be kept in pay, for the suppression of clandestine trade. Under high duties, the people will pay much, the Government receive little. Will they not, then, justly complain of the useless burdens you have imposed? Useless I call them, unless Government have in contemplation to make them conducive to oppress and injure their constituents. If you punish severely the breach of your laws, will not the people combine against them? Will it not be an additional source of dissatisfaction, that the attempts to relieve them are unsuccessful? If gentlemen consider this subject seriously, they will see cause to be alarmed. Who, in this case, can you apply to for support? Not to the people, they want an alleviation of their miseries; you have, then, nothing left but the impotency of a Government not sufficiently matured to support itself.

Gentlemen say that the funds to be produced by the proposed impost are insufficient for the public demands: if so, why not stop somewhat shorter? If we must have recourse to some other mode of obtaining revenue, let us divide the burden, and not destroy one means by loading it too heavily; if we do, the other means will not only have its own proportion to sustain, but the accumulation of its weakened fellow. Or, do gentlemen suppose they will clear the United States of incumbrances by one effort? They do

not. Why are we to grasp at so much in this way? It would be much better to call in the aid of other taxes and excises, than, by overloading, depress one of the most capable and valuable funds in our possession. Under the British Government, they have excise, stamp duties, impost, malt, and land-tax, from which to defray their expenses; why should we endeavor to do that with a single fund, when we have more in our power?

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. FITZSIMONS) has mentioned the great probability there is of getting a great duty from this article, because the consumption is more extensive in the United States than in any other part of the world; but this circumstance will furnish a strong inducement to smuggle. He says there is but a small quantity of rum smuggled into England. Gentlemen no doubt consider that Great Britain is an island well watched; her cutters and custom-house boats are ever on the look-out; but, with all these guards, and the advantage of her insular situation, she is unable to prevent smuggling.

It has been remarked, that under the State laws, experience has taught us that such duties as the bill has in contemplation can be collected; and the gentleman says, if they be collected under the State laws, they can be collected under this Government. If they have been able to collect high duties in Virginia, it is because their trade is confined to enter at one channel. But it is not so with the Eastern States; there every attempt to raise high duties has proved ineffectual; and the universal opinion there is, that five per cent. would be more productive of revenue than fifty. This is not mere matter of opinion, as has been said, but is demonstrable from facts. The principle of taxation is to produce the greatest sum of money with the greatest ease to the community. If a gentleman in trade has on hand a cargo of rum, he is able to afford it at a less price than the person who imports it subject to these duties; therefore, the latter will be under the necessity of smuggling, or storing his commodities, for he cannot afford to sell at a loss. A gentleman has mentioned, that if we do not succeed in the collection of these duties, we may lower them. But will any gentleman say, that if we lose our duty by the establishment of a system of smuggling, we shall not continue to lose after the law shall be repealed, and a lower rate of duties is imposed? If gentlemen depend upon this fund alone, I think they ought not to strain it too much; though I do not know why we should not take to our aid an excise duty; it certainly is not unpopular as it respects the distillation of spirits. If I were an enemy to the Constitution, I should be an advocate for high duties; because it would disgust the people, and render the Government unpopular; but, as I am a sincere friend to the Government now established, and desire its perpetuity, I am against any measure which I think will endanger its existence.

Mr. MADISON.-Let us compare the probable amount of the revenue proposed to be raised by

[H. OF R.

this system, with what is raised in Great Britain, and we shall be apt to infer that they are not so oppressive as gentlemen seem to insinuate. Taking the highest estimate that I have heard mentioned, and it will not produce three millions of dollars. The population of the United States exceeds three millions of souls, hence the tax does not amount to one dollar per head. Great Britain, on the highest estimation, does not contain eight millions of inhabitants, and has an annual revenue to provide of thirteen millions sterling. It is true she has recourse to other means beside an impost for the purpose of obtaining such a revenue; but those other means are certainly more objectionable in that country, and would be much more so here. Each individual of that kingdom pays eight times as much as is required by the United States; now, where is the propriety of making a comparison between them?

Mr. BALDWIN asked if the Government of the United States of America was four or five times worse to be administered than the Governments in Europe? Whether the public opinion was four or five times more unfavorable to such an administration? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, then the inferences which gentlemen have drawn of the impracticability of collecting the duties laid in the bill, are just. But this is not allowing the General Government the common chance of executing its laws. If it were the worst Government on earth, it might be allowed a chance of doing one quarter of what others perform. If we find by experience, that we are too weak to execute a system which is so much easier than other nations have adopted, it may be proper to alter it. We shall be better able to judge how far we are likely to succeed, when the bill for the collection of the revenue is brought forward. Such a bill is now in the hands of a committee, and it is to be hoped, when they report it, it will be found sufficient to insure the collection; till then, it will be best to continue the rate as it stands.

Mr. BOUDINOT.-When we consider the arguments of gentlemen on both sides of this question, we shall find they do not differ so much as, on a superficial view, gentlemen may be led to imagine. It is agreed, that a revenue must be obtained adequate to our wants; but some gentlemen think we shall not receive a greater sum because we lay a high duty; in this opinion I am with them. I think the present is a favorable time to lay an impost duty, and expect very considerable aid from the public spirit; but I am in favor of a low duty, because I would do nothing to check that spirit. If we lay high duties, and a man finds smuggling the most profitable business he can follow, we shall have to contend with private interest. If we lay a light duty of thirty or forty per cent., the temptation will be too strong for resistance, and the sum collected may not amount to ten per cent. on the whole importation; whereas, if we lay twenty or fifteen per cent., the whole may probably be collected, and the treasury be better filled, because it does not

hold out so strong an inducement to evade the payment of the duties.

Another objection has been stated which is of great weight: a system of high duties will necessarily engage us in a system of drawbacks. If we are forced into this measure, it will be a great injury to the revenue.

We ought also to consider the inconvenience to which high duties will subject our merchants. It is a common case in America that our mercantile capitals are limited. Gentlemen engaged in commerce can ill spare so large a proportion in the payment of duties.

It has been mentioned by gentlemen, that Great Britain collects four shillings sterling per gallon on rum; yet she is exposed to great difficulties in obtaining it. But I ask gentlemen, whether Great Britain ever laid such a high duty in the first instance as we are about to impose? I believe they did not: they began, I apprehend, with moderate duties, and increased them as circumstances authorized, when the people became habituated to the imposition. This is the very principle I wish to adopt, and show the world that our conduct is founded in wisdom, propriety, and experience. If we shall discover our mistake in laying high duties, and are driven by necessity to reduce them, such measures will operate to the injury of the fair trader; whereas, if we increase them by degrees, it will be rather favorable to their interest than otherwise; at all events, it will injure none.

If a sense of the committee could be obtained on a general reduction of ten or fifteen per cent. on the rate the articles now stand at, I should be glad to vote in favor of such a motion; but I could not approve of reducing the article of rum alone, because I do not think it charged out of proportion with the others.

Mr. JACKSON differed from his colleague, (Mr. BALDWIN.) He thought, although the British laid four shillings on rum, they did not collect it; and that their custom-house establishments were so expensive as to leave a mere trifle for the net produce of the impost duty. If America employed such a host of revenue officers as to secure the payment of high duties, there would be very little left, after compensating their services, to supply the federal treasury.

Mr. WADSWORTH desired gentlemen to consider that the citizens of the United States owned vessels as well calculated for smuggling as any that were employed between the Netherlands and England; therefore, they had little more security against smuggling than Great Britain.

Mr. JACKSON.-It was well observed by the honorable gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. WADSWORTH,) that America has vessels well adapted for smuggling: I can declare it, from my own knowledge, to be the fact. It is not, Mr. Chairman, the large vessels coming off long voyages that we are to apprehend danger from; it is our coasters, small vessels constantly coming in and going out; these can run goods from foreign ports adjacent to the United States; they are best acquainted with the unfrequented parts,

[MAY, 1789.

where they can deposite their cargoes with safety, and will make use of these advantages to defraud your revenue.

With regard to the equity of the impost system, I conceive direct taxation will be more equitable. We, in the Southern States, shall then pay in proportion to our numbers; but under this law we shall contribute much more.

Gentlemen talk of improving the morals of the people by taxation. For my part, I conceive revenue has nothing to do with the morals of the people; therefore such considerations have no weight on my mind. All that I contemplate is, drawing as much money as we can with equity; and here I believe more can be obtained by a less impost than by a greater; therefore, I am in favor of reducing the duties. It will likewise be more honorable to the Government to begin gradually and win the affections of the people, rather than disgust them by oppressive measures; for, if we lose their confidence, we lose our power and authority.

Mr. GERRY. It appears to me, that gentlemen place their arguments on the name of high duties, rather than on principle; for if they were certain that the energy of Government would effect all they aspire at, then it would follow, that we have nothing more to do than to name the sum we want. But if these ideas are not well supported, the superstructure they have raised upon them must fall to the ground. The energy of your Government depends upon the approbation of the people. No doubt the citizens of the United States will support the Government they have adopted, so long as they approve the measures it pursues, but no longer. Gentlemen trust much, on this occasion, to the co-operation which they expect from their constituents; but I would wish them to examine this argument. These duties are to be collected from the several States into which certain goods are imported. If the people of Massachusetts shall conceive any particular duty peculiarly oppressive on them, they will seek to evade it. This opens a door for smuggling all the other articles.

I conceive gentlemen to be mistaken with respect to the effects which high duties will produce on the mercantile interest. I think there cannot be a doubt but they will be obliged to smuggle; if they mean to continue their business, their capital will be insufficient for the purposes of commerce and the payment of high duties. Gentlemen will not draw knowledge from the experience of Great Britain; therefore, it is unnecessary to adduce her example. But let us see what we are taught by the practice of our own States. Massachusetts drew a very considerable revenue from an impost; she lately tried to increase it by doubling the duties; but, instead of doing so, they found the revenue lessened, and they were obliged to alter what they had so injudiciously attempted. I am willing to suppose with gentlemen, that the Government is invested by the Constitution with sufficient energy to carry any regulation of this kind into effect; but is this the time to try the energy of your Government, when your com