to the principle that American shipping ought to be protected, and that British goods ought not to be bought or consumed when imported in British ships. But they do not stop here. They are for carrying the system of protection a step farther, and they insist, in their turn, that these British goods ought not to be bought or consumed at all. "For," say they, “ Mr. Hancock, what difference does it make to us, whether hats, shoes, boots, shirts, handkerchiefs, tin-ware, brass-ware, cutlery, and every other article, come in British ships or come in your ships; since, in whatever ships they come, they take away our means of living." It does not appear, Mr. Speaker, what answer was given by Mr. Hancock to this pregnant interrogatory. I know not what answer he could have given but one of assent and approbation. At all events we see him here one of the earliest advocates of a protecting policy; and who can doubt that could the conjuration of the gentleman from Gloucester summon him out of his grave in the faith in which he went down into it, he would be found so still? But let us turn to another scene, and another character.

Let us come down, Sir, to the beginning of the year 1788. The Constitution of the United States is in the process of adoption. Four or five States have already given it their sanction, but as many more are required to carry it into operation. The decision in other States is extremely doubtful, and nowhere more so than in Massachusetts, whose Convention is now in session. John Hancock, it is well known, is President of this Convention, but Samuel Adams also is a conspicuous member. He is naturally of a cautious and doubting disposition, and has many fears of the practicability and safety of the proposed form of government. The whole weight of his name and character are consequently arrayed at the outset against its adoption, when suddenly a change comes over his views, and is visible in his conduct. The mechanics of Boston have held a meeting at the Green Dragon. They have passed resolutions. They have sent those resolutions to Mr. Adams by the hand of Paul Revere. "How many mechanics," says Mr. Adams, "were there at the Green Dragon when these resolutions were adopted?" "More than the Green Dragon could hold." "And where were the rest?" "In the streets." "And

how many were there in the streets?" "More than there are stars in the sky." I see before me, Mr. Speaker, one of the very mechanics who met at the Green Dragon on this eventful occa sion. My venerable friend and colleague (Zachariah Hicks) was not merely a witness but a party to this scene. He was a Whig in that day, as he is in this. And what were the resolu tions which he assisted in passing? They declared that, if the Constitution were adopted, "trade and navigation would revive and increase, and employ and subsistence be afforded to many of the townsmen then suffering for the want of the necessaries of life," while, on the contrary, should the Constitution be rejected, "the small remains of commerce yet left would be annihilated the various trades and handicrafts dependent thereon decay; the poor be increased, and many worthy and skilful me chanics be compelled to seek employ and subsistence in strange lands." These were the doctrines of the mechanics of that day; - these were the hopes which they entertained in advocating the adoption of the Constitution;-encouragement to their own labor and protection from foreign competition. And partly, at least, under the influence of these doctrines and these hopes, thus expressed and thus conveyed, Samuel Adams abandons all opposition to the Constitution, and John Hancock unites with him in its favor. There is no longer any doubt; the question is decided; and Massachusetts gives, as it were, the very casting vote in favor of the Constitution. The example of conciliatory moderation which she sets, in proposing amendments to be acted on after its adoption instead of before, is followed by other States, and the ratification is soon complete. And yet we are now told, Sir, that Samuel Adams and John Hancock, could they rise from the dead, would be among the first and foremost to protest against the Protecting System as an unconstitutional system of taxation!

Mr. Speaker, the anecdotes which I have related do not simply demonstrate the absurdity of this idea. They do not only prove to us which side these distinguished persons, if permitted to revisit this scene of their patriotic labors, would take in the questions before us. They also exhibit to us distinctly the circumstances and the sentiments under which the Constitution of the United States was adopted, and the immediate ad

vantages which were expected from its adoption. Compare, now, these two incidents together; look at the cause of the depression and distress which pervaded the country, as explained in the first, and at the remedy which was prescribed and administered in the last, and then add a single other fact to your viewa fact, which the published statutes of the country attest, that the very first Revenue Act which was adopted by Congress after the Constitution went into operation, contained in its preamble the express declaration, that the duties it imposed were laid not only for the support of government and the discharge of the public debts, but for the encouragement and protection of manufactures;-and then give sentence with me, Sir, as to the unconstitutionality of this system of taxation!

But let me turn from argument to authority upon this point. The gentleman told us the other day that Daniel Webster once asserted the unconstitutionality of the Tariff. Now, it is true, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this distinguished statesman did venture to say, some twenty years ago, in the deliberate form of a Caucus Speech, that, as an original question, the practice of government set aside, the power of Congress to lay duties for protection was, in his opinion, a more doubtful one than that to expend money in Internal Improvements. Something of this sort he has himself confessed. But, most fortunately, Sir, he has also confessed under what influence it was that he resolved these doubts, at the feet of what Gamaliel he unlearned this opinion. It was James Madison, we are told, who satisfied Mr. Webster on this point, so far as the practice of government had left it an open question-JAMES MADISONwhose opinions, I had supposed to be the very scale and standard of true, old-fashioned Republicanism. The vaunted democracy of the present day, it seems, is seeking newer lights, and it is welcome to the whole benefit of their brilliancy. But there are those in this House, and a majority, too, I believe, who desire no better authority, on this subject at least, than that of James Madison, and who will rest their belief in the constitutionality of the Tariff on his opinions, without any fear or any misgiving.

But the anecdotes which I have related have still another ap

plication. They teach us, Sir, what class of our citizens were most deeply interested in that general system of imposts which the Constitution established, and in the encouragement and protection of manufactures which that system was intended to involve. They teach us whose "means of living were taken away" by the free importation of British goods and the free entry of British ships, and who "would be compelled to seek employ and subsistence in strange lands" unless the power of regulating trade and protecting manufactures were conferred upon the general government. And, Mr. Speaker, it is now as it was then. It is not the rich capitalists and corporations, who are so artfully chimed upon in every other sentence of Mr. Cambreleng's Report, and to whom the people of the country are falsely represented as paying an involuntary and odious tribute, -no, Sir, it is the artisan, the mechanic, and the tradesfolk, who will suffer before all others and more than all others if the protecting system be abolished. It is the wages and earnings of the laboring poor which will be affected first and affected most by such a step. It is one of the blessings which this country has hitherto enjoyed, that the natural rate of wages is high, higher than anywhere else on the face of the globe. The gentleman from Gloucester will not disagree with me in the position that this is a blessing, and that the condition of that country is most prosperous and most happy where labor receives the largest reward. But it is this same high rate of wages which makes us enter upon the manufacturing system to so great disadvantage. I find, in the last number of the American Almanac, a statement which speaks volumes on this subject. That excellent periodical contains a table of the average wages of all persons employed in the Cotton manufacture, in almost every country where the Cotton manufacture exists. It is as follows:

I know no reason, Sir, for supposing that this disparity is confined to the wages of those employed in the manufacture of cotton; — every reason, on the other hand, for believing it to run through the whole range of human labor. Indeed, we need no statistical tables to teach us this fact. The unebbing tide of immigration which is daily flinging upon our shores such masses of life and limb, proves to us beyond all doubt, that there is something in our condition which Labor will leave home and kindred and country to obtain. Nor are we at a loss to account for this thriving condition of American labor. To say nothing of moral, social, or political causes, the cheapness, fertility, and abundance of our Western lands, holding out to the laborer a temptation, which nothing but a rate of wages bearing some degree of equality to the certain profits of his own produce upon that luxuriant soil can check or counteract, is alone sufficient to explain it. But I find myself departing from my promise to abstain from abstract discussion. I will only repeat my conviction, that it is labor more than any other element in our manufacturing capacities, which demands protection of the government; that it is labor which has hitherto received the greatest share of that protection which the Tariff has been arranged to afford; and that it is labor which must bear the heaviest burden of discouragement and loss whenever that protection is abandoned. The profits of capitalists and corporations! Depend upon it, Mr. Speaker, domestic competition will take care that these are not too high, and if there be not capital enough at home to furnish that competition, foreign capital will flow freely in to its aid. It is no part of the protecting system to prevent that kind of competition, nor does it in any considerable degree do so. But the competition of the half-clad, half-starved, and wholly uneducated labor of the Old World, with the welldressed, well-fed, virtuous, and educated labor of our own landa competition which, with but a slight tendency to elevate or improve the one, would have the certain effect of dragging down and degrading the other, this the Protecting System does provide against, and God grant that such a provision may never be abandoned!

Mr. Speaker, the paper on your table has more than once been