consecrated by the purposes which put them in motion, I would have labored to induce you to send the respondent away, unrebuked, from this hall; that you might thereby, have fixed on the character of this administration, a coloring of infamy more enduring, on the page of history, than that leprosy on the human form, which the stream of time through a thousand descents, could never wash out of the human blood.

"Preserve then, I conjure you, preserve the Constitution; preserve the independence of the Legislature; the honor, the character, the fame, of the Executive. Preserve the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press. This is the first outrage on all-all that is dear-all that is glorious: say, for you only can say, it shall be the last."

CHAPTER XII.

Mr. Burges submits Resolutions on the Tariff-Speaks on Mr. Verplanck's Bill on the Tariff-Extracts from his Speech.

DURING the Session of 1833, when the Bill submitted by Mr. Verplanck upon the Tariff System was under consideration, Mr. Burges submitted a set of Resolutions upon the whole subject of the protective policy. In the preamble to these Resolutions, the complaints on the part of those opposed to the System were recited to wit; that the power of laying duties on foreign imports, had been tyrannically and unequally exercised by the majority in Congress; that thereby the plantation States were oppressed, and compelled to pay more than their proportion of duties; that the same States had also been compelled to pay a large amount of duties upon the exportation of their staple products; and that the money so exacted, by the usurped powers of Congress, had been lavished in bounties to manufacturers in the North, and especially in New-England; in expenditures on works intended exclusively for the benefit of the labor and capital of those States; that the effect of such representations was, to lead the people of the plantation States into error concerning the disposition of the public money, in bounties and public works; and as it was now proposed to abandon the protective policy of 1787, to lay duties on imports solely for purposes of revenue and so as to equalize the burden of impost and taxation on all the States. Such an adjustment could not be made without a knowledge of the quantities and kind of foreign goods, consumed in each State, and required by the trade, habits, and wants of the people. This information was desirable for the National Legislature, and for all interests and all sections of the United States. The Resolution proposed the appointment of

a Committee of one member from each State, to inquire, respecting;

1st-The amount of money paid by the people of each State, on foreign goods imported, on its domestic productions exported, on all tonnage of vessels owned therein; the number of seamen to each State, the amount of money paid to the Marine Hospital-Fund; the amount of postage paid; also on distilled spirits; the amount received by each State, for drawbacks and debentures; the number of vessels employed in the fisheries, bounties on manufactures, and of what kinds; the amount expended on public works; for transporting the mail, and for supporting the military establishments therein.

2d--The amount of exports from each State; designating articles of foreign and domestic production, the amount of duty payable thereon, the population of each State, and the average amount payable by each person-the amount and value of the productions, with the market price of sugar, cotton, rice, tobacco, bread-stuffs, provisions, salt, distilled spirits, silk, wool, fish, oil, lumber, manufactures, of what and each kind, the current prices of such articles in England and France, the cost and charges, and the amount of duties and bounties, on importation, or exportation, in those countries.

.

This Committee, it was proposed, should be appointed by ballot; and that it should consist of one from each State; and be clothed with power to send for persons and papers, and to report in detail the above particulars in relation to all the States.

From this abstract of the Resolution, it will be observed, that it reached the very foundation of the protective policy; and met the question upon the broad ground of facts and figures, and altogether discarded sophistry, speculation, and theory. It, however, was not acted upon by the House; because the Bill afterwards introduced by Mr. Clay, superseded further action. It is on file among the public documents; and there it will remain, illustrative of the practical wisdom and enlarged views of its

author.

At this Session, Mr. Burges delivered in Committee of the Whole House, another speech upon the Tariff Question. The

doctrines maintained by him embrace the main principles belonging to this exciting and interesting topic.

The memorable Statute of July 4th, 1789, was the beginning of the protecting policy; and a series of measures, founded upon that statute, have placed our country, in her present condition of prosperity and independence. In this speech, Mr. Burges considered the Bill under consideration, as aiming a decisive blow at that policy; because, in its practical operations, it would bring a train of disasters and adversity upon the nation.

Legislative power, he contended, was given to Congress by the people, for three great purposes

1st-To pay the debts of the United States; 2d-To provide for the common defence; 3d-To promote the general welfare; and that no specified power was granted, but for these three great purposes; and to the same intent, the power to make all laws proper or necessary to the exercise of those powers, was also given.

To pay the debts of the United States, Congress could lay and collect direct taxes, and so they could lay and collect taxes indirectly, by impost, duties, and excise. To provide for the common defence, they could raise money in all these three ways. For the same purpose, they could support armies, maintain a navy, call out the militia, declare war, and make reprisals. To promote the general welfare, all other express powers were giventhe power of exclusive legislation in certain cases, of organizing the Judiciary, encouraging arts and sciences, establishing the mails, forming rules of naturalization, and bankruptcy, fixing a standard of weights and measures; and finally, the regulation of commerce, by imposts, duties, and excise, limitations, or prohibitions; and by all laws necessary and proper for that purpose.

These powers are all inseparable from the general welfare; and they can be exercised to no valuable purpose, except by Congress. The power therefore to promote the general welfare, the people have given to Congress; because the States, could not direct it, as States, in its proper sphere and influence. He further argued, that one of the most essential powers ever exercised by Government, is no where expressly given to Congress by the

Constitution-that is, to raise money for the support of Government: yet that no one will deny, that it belongs to Congress. If one of the States, can promote the welfare of its own citizens, so Congress can promote the general welfare: because the people of all the States, have delegated that power to the United States; and upon that, its exercise depends. If each State could so regulate its foreign intercourse, as to encourage and protect its own industry, then as the States have divested themselves of that power, and given it to Congress, they are bound to exercise it, for the same great purpose. Before the adoption of the Constitution, no State could prevent the exercise of this power by another State; neither can it since the Constitution, to the same extent, in the same manner, and for the same purposes.

It is, he contended, a grave question, whether a State can in fact have, or maintain any interest under the Constitution, inconsistent with the general welfare. Such an interest would be a common nuisance, and like the slave trade, it would be abated, by the force of popular opinion. Money is raised for the support of Government, because it promotes the general welfare. How then, can it be called upon to promote any interest, inconsistent with that welfare? Or how can that Government be supported, when to maintain that interest, it sacrifices that welfare.

The constitutional argument concluded, Mr. Burges referred to the protecting statutes of 1789, and 1816, and to the encouragement extended by them to the cotton-growing interest. That interest, he contended, in its youthful progress, stretched out its feeble arms towards the nation, implored its protection, and received it, as an affectionate child receives the love and solicitude of a parent. Why then is the nation like the good old Lear, whose frank heart gave all,' now left by that South to feel, how sharper than a serpent's tooth,' is filial ingratitude.

The protecting policy was intended to increase the amount of domestic production. It is said, however, that the spirit of independence which it inculcates, is unsocial in its nature, and hostile to the power of America and England. Mutual dependence

U