Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

ENCA LIBRARY NEW YORK

[blocks in formation]

after they had reached their destination? Unless he had satisfactory reasons to believe it was his interest, he would be just as far from doing this as a high-minded merchant from a western city would be from asking it, or receiving it if offered.

All who have assumed to represent the feelings of the merchants of New York, embraced by this bill, have expressly disavowed, on behalf of those merchants, a desire or even willingness to accept of the proposed measure, as a favor, boon, or charity, from the Government. They say they rest this claim upon its intrinsic justice; that it is founded on correct principle; and demand of us, as a matter of right, the passage of this bill; to prove which, they assume that the importer is a mere agent of the Government; that the bond he executes for duties is executed under a sort of legal restraint; that his contract is not voluntary. Both of these positions I consider altogether untenable. The importer cannot, in my conception, be understood to sustain to the Government the relation of an agent to his principal. It certainly cannot be, as the supporters of this measure have contended, that the importer sustains to the Federal Government the relation that the collector of the revenues in the States dues to the State Governments. The collectors of the ports, as I understand it, answer to the place of the collector of the revenues in the States, and the importer, to every intent and purpose, answers to the place of tax payer.

The collectors of the revenues in the State Governments have no right of property in the taxes they collect, and are, in strictness, agents, just as much as the auctioneer is the agent of the owner of the goods which he sells. An agent has no right of property in the article the owner has placed in his hands: the owner has the entire right; and thus the one is easily distinguished from the other. Is not the importer, then, to every possible intent, the owner of his imported goods? Can he not keep and use them himself, or retail or wholesale them out, or refuse to do either, at his own option? None can deny this. And, if so, how can it be contended that the importer sustains the relation to this Government of a mere agent? It really seems to me the position is too self-evidently fallacious to be susceptible of elucidation. The gentleman from Massachusetts contends that it is the spirit and intention of the law that the consumer, and not the importer, should pay the duty. And hence, before the goods are sold to the consumer, if they are destroyed by fire or other accident, the importer should be released from the duty. Now, whilst I readily admit the practical effect of imposing duties upon importations, in this as in every other country, is, that the consumer pays it, I do deny that there is any thing in the spirit and meaning or policy of the laws imposing duties on importations that requires a sale by the importer, or a consumption of the article imported, before the Government has a right, in justice and in law, to exact its duties.

When an importer introduces a foreign article into this Government, he acts with a view of making a profit by it. If it be in great demand, he perhaps makes a heavy profit; if in less demand, his profit diminishes in the same proportion; if it be in no demand, he perhaps fails in his sale, and loses upon the article. He makes bis importation with a full knowledge of all his risks, and only does it because of his conviction that the prospect of a good profit is greater that the probability of a loss. His is a chancing bargain; and, if he lose by it, nothing but just one of those contingencies which, in the nature of things, must occasionally occur, has transpired, and he has no just ground of complaint. Suppose an importer introduce a quantity of some article subject to become worthless, and, after he enters it, and gives his bond for the duty, it actually becomes VOL. XII.-161

[H. OF R.

worthless, will it be contended the importer shall be released from the duty, because the article had not gotten off his hands before it spoiled? Surely, none will so con. tend. As well might it be contended that, if such article had enhanced in value, the Government should be entitled to the increased value. Such risks are incident to the nature of the business; and every rational man who engages in it so calculates, and lays his profits accordingly.

I do not consider that the profit or per cent. which the importer makes upon his importation is the consideration that supports and renders valid the bonds given by him for duties, but it is the privilege of importing, and taking the chance of making a profit, that constitutes their real consideration. The Government does not un dertake to guaranty to the importer a sale of his imported goods, or a profit upon that sale. None, it is to be presumed, will contend that the importer who has failed to realize more than cost and carriage for his car-` go, shall claim to be released from the duties he owes his Government, because he was unable to make a sale covering cost, carriage, and duty.

The consideration of a bond for duties is exactly analogous to that of one executed for lottery tickets; the purchaser only buys a chance for a prize, and not the prize itself. And the purchaser of a ticket could, with just as much propriety, go to the agent of those who have made a lottery, and ask for his money back after he had drawn a blank, as the importer can come to us, sir, as the agents of the people, to whom all duties belong, and ask us to forgive him his bond, or to extend him a credit averaging four years; for it will be borne in mind that those who have advocated this bill have avowed an intention of sustaining another bill to release the duties on all goods that were destroyed in the hands of the importer; and no small proportion of their arguments have borne on this question. But further to elucidate my understanding of the practical operations of the chancing bargain of the importer--suppose those sufferers by the fire in New York had, since the fire, im. ported French goods to the value of 20,000,000 dollars, and a war with France, or a total exclusion of all French goods from our ports, had been determined upon by Congress: would not those importers have felt themselves entitled to all the advantages accruing to them in such a contingency? would they not, as sensible men, bave improved their fortuitous position to make a much greater profit on these importations than they anticipated when they engaged in the enterprise? And who would ever think of their dividing their profits, thus greatly increased, with the Government, by whose immediate action those profits were enlarged?

The gentleman from Massachusetts says, although it is the intention of the law that the consumer should pay the duty, and not the importer, yet the situation of the importer is altogether different from the merchant in Cincinnati, who may bave purchased from the importer; the importer, being a kind of agent of the Government, has a right to demand his duties back of the Government if the goods imported be consumed before sale; but if the Cincinnati merchant buy the whole cargo, and it is consumed by fire, whilst his, though perhaps unremoved, the Government ought not to interfere, because one is a sort of agent of the Government, and pays the duty, and the other does not. Is this not rather a distinction without a difference? In neither case has the article reached the hands of the consumer. And if the gentleman's argument be good, that it is the intention of the law that the consumer should pay the duty, would it not as much defeat that intention in the case of the Cincinnati merchant as in that of the New York importer; and as much in the case of the village merchant, who is perhaps the third owner, as in either instance?

[blocks in formation]

But it is contended again by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the laws imposing duties operate as a legal restraint on the natural right of the importer; that he is compelled to execute his bond before he can land or enter his cargo, and therefore the bond is not altogether voluntary, and that in this it essentially differs from an ordinary bond given to a private creditor by his debtor. There may, at first blush, be an apparent difference in the two cases; but, on examination, I think it will be found that there is no essential or material difference. I hold that a merchant enters upon the pursuit of his chosen avocation, with a knowledge of the laws by which the wisdom of the nation has regulated it. He knows that when his ship arrives in port he has to execute his bond, with approved security, for the duties on his cargo, before he can land or enter it in the custom-house. With a full knowledge of all this, he, as a free agent, laboring under no legal compulsion or restraint, voluntarily enters upon the business of an importer, it is to be presumed with a knowledge of, and a willingness to comply with, the laws regulating the imposition and collection of duties. Hence, with great deference to the opinion of the honorable gentleman, I cannot admit the validity of his position, that the contract between the importer and his Government is not entirely voluntary, and that it differs essentially from one between a private creditor and debtor.

Every pursuit has its peculiar advantages and disadvantages. We find the rewards of labor in the thousand various pursuits of life, from the humble day laborer up to the most enterprising and hazardous merchant, are generally small in proportion to their certainty, and enlarge as they grow more uncertain. Hence, he who is content with the meager supply of the absolute necessities of an humble life will adopt the pursuit of a day laborer, because the reward of his labor is immediate and certain; he draws each night the wages of the past day, and retires to his humble dwelling to rest from his labor, free from all the cares and perplexities to which others of large possessions or multifarious engagements are subject. He, however, who is not content with his condition, will perhaps adopt the business of a tiller of the earth, the rewards of whose labor, though more uncertain, and not so immediate, are yet larger in proportion to their greater uncertainty. An early frost, or an unusual storm, may occasionally sweep from him the fruits of months of labor; yet, as such occurrences are rare, and the inducements in the way of profit are great, we see the great mass of our fellow-citizens engaged in agriculture. But when the early frosts come, and cut short the crops of the farmer, he is conscious that it is nothing but what, from the nature of his business, he had reason occasionally to anticipate, and never thinks of asking the Government to supply his less. So, again, he who is ambitious of great wealth, who has no relish for mediocrity, and who, from the peculiarity of his organization, is happiest when most excited, which is when his prospects of gain and hope of profit are greatest, adopts the pursuit of an importer, who, whilst he shares undividedly the immer.se profits attending prosperity in his pursuit, should not, as a just man, when adversity comes, desire his fellow-citizens, which is but another name for his Government, to remunerate him for his losses. I cannot perceive that his claim for relief has any more foundation in principle and justice than that of the farmer whose crop has been cut short by the frosts or an unfavorable season.

Upon the subject of the warehousing system of Eng. land, about which the honorable gentleman has exhibited much learning, I will barely remark, that the only material practical difference between it and our system is, that there the risk of the importer is less than in this country, and he lays a less profit to cover that less risk.

[FEB. 17, 1836.

Our merchants, enlightened and intelligent, as the gen. tleman has just said they are, lay a profit upon their business that bears a proper proportion to their risk: as evidence of which, take the importers of goods to this country for the last twenty years; look at the amount of capital invested by them in their business, and then see whether, under all the supposed hardships of our system, the same amount of capital has been employed by the same number of men, with any thing approaching the same profit. It cannot be the policy of this Govern ment, by partial and individual legislation, to contribute to the amassment of overgrown wealth in the hands of any particular class of its citizens. The people in every community are most happy when there is least inequality in their wealth; and as the happiness of the people is the prime object of this Government, we should be slow to indulge in a course of partial legislation, calculated to defeat that great object. Our Government has a just and natural right to demand of its importers duties upon their importations, in return for the millions of dollars it annually expends in protecting and affording facilities to their commerce, among the most conspicuous items of which stand the expenses of our navy and our diplomatic corps. It is unjust that the Government, which is but another name for the whole people, should lay out and expend millions annually for the protection of a portion of its citizens, in a particular pursuit, and get nothing in turn for it to the common Treasury.

The honorable gentleman further insists on the propriety of this measure, because of the immense amount which the port of New York has yielded to the Treasury, exceeding, as we are informed, $260,000,000, and now annually equalling one half of all the duties of the Government. And it is urged with great zeal and earnestness upon the Government, thatmerchants who have done this much have a right to claim its special protection. Now mark, Mr. Chairman, that the friends of this bill have contended that the spirit and meaning of the laws imposing duties on imports are, that the consumer shall pay them; and all admit that, in general, the practical operation of these laws is, that the consumer pays the first costs, the carriage, the profits of all the intermediate owners, and the duty of the Government, on every thing that is imported. If, then, this be correct, can it be said that New York is entitled to the credit of paying the taxes and supporting the Government? It is the products of the tillers of the earth, sir, that go abroad and return in the shape of foreign commodities through the port of New York, that fill your coffers; and New York collects and pays over to the Government the duties, and then turns round and says she is the supporter of the Government. Does she, sir, do this service without compensation, that she should claim so much merit for it? Let us look into this matter. She keeps> for her trouble ten per cent. on the amount collected, and this is the lowest estimate that is placed on the expense of collection; so that, in truth, we perceive that she has charged us at least $26,000,000, for the services rendered us in collecting and paying our own money! And yet we are asked to pass this measure for her bene. fit, which is, in effect, a donation of upwards of $318,000. I, for one, am opposed to this extension of the credit on these bonds, upon principle, and because I think the precedent will involve the country in immense troubles and difficulties; but if it be extended, I insist, in justice to the balance of the citizens of this Government, that the obligors be required to pay interest upon their bonds.

We have heard much said, Mr. Chairman, in commendation of the city of New York; she has been justly called the London of America. We are truly told that she belongs alike to all the citizens of our wide-spread republic, and that every one has cause to be proud of her. Her representatives tell us that she is so complete.

[blocks in formation]

ly the heart of these United States, that a derangement of any of her functions, like a derangement of the healthful operations of the functions of the human heart, will be severely felt by all the different members. We are told that every city, village, and hamlet, in the land, will feel the effects of this calamity, unless we extend the relief contemplated by this bill. We have been told that a large proportion of the banking capital, upon which the enterprise and the business of the West and Southwest are predicated, belongs in New York; and, unless she is relieved by our timely interposition, that this portion of the Union is to feel the shock with peculiar force. We, the representatives from Kentucky, have been admonished to look before we leap; and see that our opposition to this bill does not conflict with the best interests of our constituents, and, as a natural consequence, amount to a misrepresentation of them. We, sir, are advised, in a most special and significant manner, by the gentleman from New York, that very much of our banking capital belongs to that city, and that the vacuum occasioned by the late destruction of capital there, unless this measure should be successful, must and will be supplied by funds withdrawn (by the New York capitalists) from the West.

I, Mr. Chairman, am not unapprized that a heavy pressure in New York would be sensibly felt by the people of Kentucky, and by no portion of them so sensibly as my immediate constituents, the citizens of the city of Louisville and the circumjacent counties; that city presents a grand and magnificent specimen of the incalculable resources of the West, and most particularly of Kentucky, which (I hope I may be permitted to say, without incurring the imputation of egotism, what all impartial writers have said) is the garden of the world. The history of the world, under similar circumstances, sir, presents no parallel to the rapidly increasing popu lation and commerce of this city, which, sir, though for months in the dry season of every year is inaccessible, except for boats of a small size, has more than doubled her population of 10,000 since the census of 1830, and now possesses more commerce by one fourth than her very flourishing and enterprising sister, Cincinnati, which, in 1830, possessed a population near three times as great as hers. I am proud of a station upon this floor as the representative of such a city; and as long as I am honored with its confidence, its best interest shall find in me, though a feeble, yet a devoted and assiduous advocate. But, sir, I should feel myself an unworthy representative of my constituents, who consider of, and act upon, every subject connected with the public interest with expanded and enlarged views, were I not to act upon this subject with views which I consider to be correspondingly liberal and enlarged. I, sir, however, do not consider that we act upon this subject with views sufficiently enlarged, when we confine the operation of this measure to the present effects to be produced upon New York, and such other sections as may feel the consequences of the late fire; but we should look forward to the effects that this act is to have as a precedent to fature legislation in this hall. I believe the laws regulating the collection of our duties are not unwise. Ibe lieve they reflect the image of enlightened public opinion, upon which all the laws of this Government rest; but if they are wrong and oppressive, let us change the system, and let it be uniform in its operation, so that the citizens of every State, whether represented on this floor by the influence and votes of one or forty members, shall experience equal benefits from it.

Then, sir, I do admit that this fire will produce a pressure in New York, and that its effects will, in some degree, reach my constituents; and that the proposed measure would, to some extent, alleviate that pressure. But, sir, it does not hence follow that I can support it;

[H. OF R.

it does not follow that my constituents, if standing in person here, would support it. I know them well enough to assert, and I do assert with pride, as their representatives that self-interest is no unerring test of their support of a particular measure, and that they would not hesitate to oppose this bill, even though they were the immediate sufferers, and were intended to be the recipients of the favor, if they thought it wrong in principle and bad in policy. Therefore I oppose the bill, believing, as I conscientiously do, that I could not vote for it except in violation of important principles and sound policy.

But, sir, let us consider of what appears to me to be another very weighty objection to this bill. It will be seen, by the first section, that every merchant who has suffered a loss to the amount of one thousand dollars shall have credits, equal to an average of four years, on the whole amount of his bonds, from and after they fall due. Now, suppose an importer is indebted $50,000 for duties to the Government, and has lost $1,000 by the fire, calculating the use of his money worth to him six per cent. per annum, he makes a nett profit, over and above his loss, of $11,000. And off of whom? The people--the righful owners of it, to whom it is always worth at least six per cent. per annum, and who have as much right to the interest as the principal.

I hold, as it respects the second section of this bill, unless the credit asked is extended with the sole view of better securing the collection of bonds embraced by it, that there is no more propriety in extending the proposed credit than in taking the amount of $3,000,000 out of the Treasury, and loaning it to the merchants of Philadelphia, Cincinnati, or Louisville; to do which we are prohibited by considerations of policy not less than those of a constitutional character.

I am not one of the number who believe that a check on the growth and power of the city of New York will be attended with those blasting and ruinous effects on all parts of this Government which some seem to anticipate. Whilst I am the last to desire a calamity to befall New York; whilst I am entirely content that she may enjoy and improve those benefits which nature has given her, I should be happy to witness, in Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore, rival cities, commanding an equal commerce and an equal power. I must confess, occurrences have transpired, and ideas have been suggested, in connexion with the power and importance of that city, which have rather aroused my apprehensions.

We are told she is the heart of this nation, and to allow her commercial operations to become deranged is to derange every member of this whole Union, in all its ramifications; that already she has extended to the West and South loans and accommodations to the amount of twenty-nine millions of dollars, and already do we hear the representatives of the people admonished, that if they do not attend to the present demand of the city of New York, their constituents will feel the effects of a refusal. How long will it be, if she continues to increase in her commerce, and population, and power, and money, as in years past, before she can come into this hall, and say, through her representatives, that the interest of this city of ours requires this, that, or the other, legislative assistance, perhaps the use of twenty or fifty millions of dollars, as a loan from the Government, without interest, for four or forty years, in order to sustain herself under her "much-abused spirit of enterprise," and to admonish a majority of the members that if they refuse the demand, their constituents, who have the use of millions of New York money, will be made to feel the effects of the refusal?

I, for one, Mr. Chairman, do protest in my place against New York, or any other city, advancing to such an eminence of power. I hope never to see any city in

[blocks in formation]

these United States sustain to them the relation Paris sustains to France. God forbid that New York shall ever become what the advocates of this measure have denominated it--the same to our political system which the heart is to the corporeal system.

We have heard much, Mr. Chairman, from a certain quarter, though not from Massachusetts, about a moneyed corporation wielding dangerous powers that were likely to overshadow the liberties of the people. I should be pleased to know whether the gentlemen, who were in by-gone days so sensitive about moneyed influences, are now to be found among the number who are admonishing the West to mark well their course on this subject, and see that they do not run counter to the interests of their constituents. We have been told that New York has acted the part of a kind, fond, indulgent, and confiding mother, to the cities and villages of the West. 1 do not wish, sir, to create any sectional jealousies upon this or any other subject that comes before this House, for I consider it an improper mode of legislation; but 1 will barely remark, that whilst I have learned there is much of enterprise, industry, and prudent financiering, in the New York character, I had not read so far into their history as to ascertain that they were in the habit of extending their kindness and indulgence much farther than the dictates of interest might chance to suggest. I suppose the merchants of New York occasionally extend time to their western customers after their obligations fall due, but I have not within my recollection heard them charged with refusing a little interest by way of indemnity for the forbearance. And we in the West say to the merchants of New York, if it be inconvenient to pay your bonds when they fall due, it is but just you should pay interest for the indulgence.

[FEB. 17, 1836.

er against the merchant, or any one portion of the com-
munity against other portions, engaged in different pur-
suits, (for I consider they are all necessary to make up
a prosperous community, and are dependent on each
other for their prosperity,) I do most honestly accord in
opinion with that gentleman, that, instead of bestowing
our charity on importing merchants who are untouched
by the fire, we could with much propriety, if we had
the constitutional power to dispense charity to any, ex-
tend it, in the present instance, to the helpless widows
and starving orphans, whose whole means of subsistence,
vested in the insurance offices, as the only stocks in
which their limited resources would yield them a sup-
port, were in one night swept from existence, and they
thrown fatherless, friendless, and penniless, upon the
cold charities of the world.

When Mr. GRAVES had concluded-
Mr. CUSHMAN rose and said:

Mr. Chairman: Whether I should agree with gentlemen who have preceded, upon the subject of the warehouse system, or not, is a question which need not now be decided. And although much has been said in regard to the payment of duties, whether it be the importer or the consumer can have no influence with me in the formation of my opinion upon the subject now under consideration. It will be the best time to discuss those subjects when they shall come before the House with more relevancy.

The design of the bill, upon which we are now called upon to act, is to grant relief to those who have suffered by the recent calamitous fire at the city of New York; and, excepting the proviso in the first section, presents two questions, and, in my opinion, only two questions, which require an answer. The first is, whether Congress has the power to grant the relief which is solicited; and the other is, whether it be expedient so to do.

I, sir, entertain no doubts as to the constitutional power of Congress to grant all relief which this bill proposes to give, excepting what is contained in the proviso to which I have alluded.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, as an additional reason why this bill should pass, brings to the view of the House the immense loss which the fire has caused to New York; he has told us to set down the destruction of goods and buildings at $25,000,000, (which I think exceeds by $8,000,000 any previous estimate I have heard,) and to that add the amount of credit that such a sum would give merchants of good character, and also the All that is contemplated by the bill, excepting the amount of profit that such a capital would reasonably proviso, is to grant to those who have suffered by the have yielded merchants well established in business, and late distressing fire at the city of New York an extenthe additional loss consequent on the destruction of their sion of credit upon all bonds which have been given to account books and papers, and the amount would be as. secure the payment of duties, and which they now owe tounding. I agree that the loss to New York has been to the Goverement. In this particular, Congress ought immense; but it would very much puzzle the gentleman to exercise a sound discretion. It is not improbable from Massachusetts, learned and able as all admit him that, should the Government press this unfortunate class to be, to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of an impartial of debtors to make immediate payment, much might judge, that New York can sustain herself under such a be lost, which otherwise would ultimately be saved for loss, amounting, if his calculations be not magnified, to the benefit of the country. Every man who is acquaintat least $100,000,000, and yet be unable to meet the de-ed with business knows that lenity oftentimes is promands of the Government to the amount of between three and four millions. If they can maintain their credit unimpaired under all these losses; if, as it seems to be admitted on all hands, not a failure has occurred, so far, among all the Government debtors, it seems to me that gentlemen who have warned us to pass the bill, or great losses must be incurred by the Government from the failure of these merchants, are rather disposed to deal in fancy more than in reasonable calculations, predicated upon probabilities.

The gentleman from Massachusetts has felt himself called on to give the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. PEARCE] a gentle rebuke for the course he has seen proper to adopt upon this subject; he seems to think the ef fort of that gentleman, in proposing an amendment to the bill, was intended to excite, in other classes, a prejudice against that class of the community for whose relief it was intended. Now, sir, whilst I trust I shall ever be the last man on this floor, or elsewhere, to say or do any thing with a view of exciting the mechanic or farm.

The gentle

ductive of great good, both to the creditor as well as the
debtor. Such I doubt not would be the case in the pres-
ent instance. So far, therefore, I think we may safely
follow the examples which have been set before us by
the action of Congress in previous years.
man from New York, who made some very appropriate
remarks upon this subject the other day, called the at-
tention of the committee to similar relief which had been
granted to the inhabitants of the town in which I have
the honor to reside. It is true, sir, that in the years of
1802, 1807, and 1813, the town of Portsmouth, New
Hampshire, was visited by very calamitous, destructive,
and distressing fires; on two of which occasions Con-
gress readily granted relief to the sufferers by extending
the time of payment of all bonds then due at the custom-
house for one year, and for one year only. This bill
proposes to extend the time of payment of similar bonds
from three to five years. The principles involved, how-
ever, are the same, whether it be for one or for five years.
And if Congress have the right to extend the time of

« PředchozíPokračovat »