Part 5 (1/2)
”I ahams in Areater in proportion to its extent, such establishments would be impracticable if attempted, and if practicable they would be unwise”
He then pointed out the inferiority and the perils of riculture, and concluded as follows:--
”I am not anxious to accelerate the approach of the period when the great mass of American labor shall not find its e ed to shut their eyes upon external nature, upon the heavens and the earth, and immerse themselves in close and unwholesoed to shut their ears to the bleatings of their own flocks upon their own hills, and to the voice of the lark that cheers theh, that they may open them in dust and smoke and stearating of rasps and saws I have made these reer of carrying our uarding and lih-wrought hopes of some who seem to look to our present infant establishments for 'more than their nature or their state can bear'
”_It is the true policy of government to suffer the different pursuits of society to take their own course, and not to give excessive bounties or encouragements to one over another This, also, is the true spirit of the Constitution It has not, inthe occupations of the people of different States and sections, and of forcing them into other ericulture, nor manufactures any more than commerce
It owes protection to all”
The sentences in italics constitute a pretty strong and explicit statement of the _laissez faire_ doctrine, and it will be observed that the tone of all the extracts is favorable to free trade and hostile to protection and even to ree We see, also, that Mr Webster, with his usual penetration and justice of perception, saw very clearly that uniformity and steadiness of policy were more essential than even the policy itself, and in his opinion werefrom protection as much as possible
When the tariff of 1816 was under discussion Mr Websterthat it was hopeless to attempt to defeat the measure as a whole, but he devoted hi the proposed duties and to securing modifications of various portions of the bill
In 1820, when the tariff recoress, Mr Webster was not in public life He attended, however, a riculturists, held in Faneuil Hall in the suainst the proposed tariff, and he spoke strongly in favor of the free trade resolutions which were then adopted He began by saying that he was a friend to manufactures, but not to the tariff, which he considered as ht itsoainst the spirit and intention of the Constitution in exercising a power to control essentially the pursuits and occupations of individuals in their private concerns--a power to force great and sudden changes both of occupation and property upon individuals, _not as incidental to the exercise of any other power, but as a substantial and direct power_”
It will be observed that he objects to the constitutionality of protection as a ”direct power,” and in the speech of 1814, in the portion quoted in italics, he declared against any general power still more forcibly and broadly It is an iue that Mr Webster always held consistently to his views as to the limitations of the revenue power as a source of protection, and that he put protection in 1828, and subsequently sustained it after his change of position, on new and general constitutional grounds In the speeches of 1814 and 1820 he declared expressly against the doctrine of a general power of protection, saying, in the latter instance:--
”It would hardly be contended that Congress possessed that sort of general power by which it ht declare that particular occupations should be pursued in society and that others should not _If such power belonged to any governeneral governland position that there was no general power, and having so declared in this speech of 1820, he then went on to show that protection could only come as incidental to revenue, and that, even in this way, it became unconstitutional when the incident was turned into the principle and when protection and not revenue was the object of the duties
After arguing this point, he proceeded to discuss the general expediency of protection, holding it up as a thoroughly land which that country would gladly be rid of, and defending cooverneneral prosperity
He took up next the i that it would confessedly cause a diminution of the revenue, said:--
”In truth, every man in the community not immediately benefited by the new duties would suffer a double loss In the first place, by shutting out the former commodity, the price of the domestic manufacture would be raised The consuovernment will have lost the duty on the imported article, a tax equal to that duty overniven article will be precisely the amount of the present duty added to the amount of the proposed duty”
He then went on to show the injustice which would be done to all manufacturers of unprotected articles, and ridiculed the idea of the connection between home industries artificially developed and national independence He concluded by assailingit as athe rich richer and the poor poorer; of injuring business by concentrating capital in the hands of a feho obtained control of the corporations; of distributing capital less widely than coerous and undesirable population; and of leading to the hurtful e, the resolutions, and the speech were all in the interests of commerce and free trade, and Mr Webster's doctrines were on the land Federalis athe minimum of protection solely as an incident to revenue, was, at bottohly hostile to both In 1820 Mr Webster stood forth, both politically and constitutionally, as a free-trader, moderate but at the same time decided in his opinions
When the tariff of 1824 was brought before Congress and advocated with great zeal by Mr Clay, who upheld it as the ”American system,” Mr Webster opposed the policy in the fullest and most elaborate speech he had yet uished American economist, Mr Edward Atkinson, has described this speech of 1824 briefly and exactly in the folloords:--
”It contains a refutation of the exploded theory of the balance of trade, of the fallacy with regard to the exportation of specie, and of the claim that the policy of protection is distinctively the American policy which can never be iment approved and his better nature syhtened and liberal coislation, then already commenced in Great Britain”
This speech was in truth one of great ability, showing a remarkable capacity for questions of political econo with an adard to which Mr Webster always held and advanced the soundest, htened views Now, as in 1820, he stood forth as the especial champion of commerce, which, as he said, had thriven without protection, had brought revenue to the governrievously injured by the proposed tariff He made his principal objection to the protection policy on the ground of favoritism to some interests at the expense of others when all were entitled to equal consideration Of England he said, ”Because a thing has been wrongly done, it does not follow that it can be undone; and this is the reason, as I understand it, for which exclusion, prohibition, and lish systeth the different varieties of protection, and displaying very thoroughly the state of current English opinion, he defined the position which he, in coland, then as always adhered to in the folloords:--
”Protection, when carried to the point which is now recommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me destructive of all coed to adopt the systeeneral principle; on the contrary, I think freedoeneral principle, and restriction the exception”
He pointed out that the proposed protective policy involved a decline of commerce, and that steadiness and uniforered He then with great power dealt with the various points summarized by Mr Atkinson, and concluded with a detailed and learned examination of the various clauses of the bill, which finally passed by a small majority and became law
In 1828 came another tariff bill, so bad and so extreme in many respects that it was called the ”bill of aboitation of the woollen manufacturers which had started the year before, and for this bill Mr Webster spoke and voted He changed his ground on this important question absolutely and entirely, andelse The speech which he made on this occasion is a celebrated one, but it is so solely on account of the startling change of position which it announced Mr Webster has been attacked and defended for his action at this tireat zeal, and all the constitutional and econoht forward in this connection From the tone of the discussion, it is to be feared that many of those who are interested in the question have not taken the trouble to read what he said The speech of 1828 is by no means equal in any way to its predecessors in the saree It has not a shred of constitutional argueneral principles It reat force as the only one to be le and sufficient reason for its author's vote A few lines froive the marrow of the whole land, sir, has not been a leader in this policy On the contrary, she held back herself and tried to hold others back from it, from the adoption of the Constitution to 1824 Up to 1824 she was accused of sinister and selfish designs, _because she discountenanced the progress of this policy_ Under this angry denunciation against her the act of 1824 passed Now the ies, sir, are equally without the slightest foundation The opinion of New England up to 1824 was founded in the conviction that, on the whole, it isest and best, both for herself and others, that manufactures should make haste slowly When, at the commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, ere told that we should find a ht of taxation in the new aid and succor which would be thus afforded to our own ed, and prevailed, but not by the aid of New England votes, when the tariff was afterwards arranged at the close of the war in 1816 Finally, after a winter's deliberation, the act of 1824 received the sanction of both Houses of Congress and settled the policy of the country What, then, was New England to do? Was she to hold out forever against the course of the govern on one side and yet make no effort to sustain herself on the other? No, sir Nothing was left to New England but to confor was left to her but to consider that the government had fixed and determined its own policy; and that policy was _protection_ I believe, sir, alainst the law of 1824 declared that if, notwithstanding his opposition to that law, it should still pass, there would be no alternative but to consider the course and policy of the governly The law did pass; and a vast increase of invest established for good and sufficient business reasons, and Mr Webster changed with it Free trade had commended itself to him as an abstract principle, and he had sustained and defended it as in the interest of coht of interest in New England shi+fted from free trade to protection Mr Webster followed it His constituents were by no means unanimous in support of the tariff in 1828, but the majority favored it, and Mr Webster ith the iven to him in Boston at the close of the session, he explained to the dissentient minority the reasons for his vote, which were very siood predohout the whole State of which he was the representative favored the tariff, and therefore he had voted in the affirmative
Much fault has been found, as has been said, both at the tie of position on this question It has been held up as aa total absence of deep conviction That Mr Webster was, in a certain sense, inconsistent is beyond doubt, but consistency is the bugbear of s characters, while its reverse is often the proof of wisdoued that, holding as he did that the whole thing was purely a business question to be decided according to circuovernment, was at bottom perfectly consistent As to the want of deep conviction, Mr
Webster's vote on this question proves nothing He believed in free trade as an abstract general principle, and there is no reason to suppose that he ever abandoned his belief on this point But he had too clear a aries of the Manchester school He knew that there was no , in an impost or a free list It has been the fashi+on to refer to Mr Disraeli's declaration that free trade was ”a entleman's cynical indifference to moral principles That the late Earl of Beaconsfield had no deep convictions on any subject may be readily admitted, but in this instance he uttered a very plain and simple truth, which all the talk in the world about free trade as the harbinger and foundation of universal peace on earth, cannot disguise
Mr Webster never at any time treated the question of free trade or protection as anything but one of expediency Under the lead of Mr
Calhoun, in 1816, the South and West initiated a protective policy, and after twelve years it had becoland had adapted herself to it Mr Webster, as a New England representative, resisted the protective policy at the outset as against her interests, but when she had conformed to the new conditions, he caround of expediency He rested the defence of his new position upon the doctrine which he had always consistently preached, that uniformity and permanency were the essential and sound conditions of any policy, whether of free trade or protection In 1828, neither at the dinner in Boston nor in the Senate, did he enter into any discussion of general principles or constitutional theories He merely said, in substance, You have chosen to land, and therefore I am now forced to vote for it This was the position which he continued to hold to the end of his life As he was called upon, year after year, to defend protection, and as New England becauments on many points, but the essence of all he said afterwards is to be found in the speech of 1828 On the constitutional point he was obliged to e He held, of course, to his opinion that, under the revenue power, protection could be incidental only, because from that doctrine there was no escape But he dropped the condemnation expressed in 1814 and the doubts uttered in 1820 as to the theory that it ithin the direct power of Congress to enact a protective tariff, and assueneral powers in the Constitution, or that at all events they had exercised it, and that therefore the question was henceforward to be considered as _res adjudicata_ The speech of 1828 marks the separation of Mr Webster froland Federalism
Thereafter he stood forth as the champion of the tariff and of the ”A protection in its true light, as a mere question of expediency, he followed the interests of New England and of the great industrial coround at the proper moment, bad as the ”bill of abominations” was, and that, as a Northern states so, cannot be fairly questioned or criticised It is true that his course was a sectional one, but everybody else's on this question was the same, and it could not be, it never has been, and never will be otherwise
The tariff of 1828 was destined indirectly to have far more important results to Mr Webster than the brief speech in which he signalized his change of position on the question of protection Soon after the passage of the act, in May, 1828, the South Carolina delegation held ato take steps to resist the operation of the tariff, but nothing definite was then accos in South Carolina, characterized bythe suislature of the State put forth the famous ”exposition and protest”