CHAPTER XIV. THE PERSONAL PHASE OF THE TARIFF QUESTION-JACKSON VS. CALHOUN; AND THE POWERS OF CONGRESS-JACKSON AND WEBSTER VS. CALHOUN AND HAYNE. There seems to have been no serious opposition in early days to extending "protection"-by what Constitutional authority it is not clear-to certain manufactures for limited times. The first tariff proclaimed "protection" as one of its objects, though its 7 per cent would now be regarded as a "free-trade" rate. 1 After the War of 1812 the manufacturers of the Northern States, who had been powerfully encouraged by the disturbances of commerce during and preceding the war, clamored for a tariff which would ensure to them a continuance of war prices. They were gratified for three years, and before the three years were ended they secured an extension of their privileges for seven years. 1 1 Designed solely as a war measure it was, perhaps, Constitutional; Congress could establish gun shops, powder mills, etc., if they were needed, or it could " encourage "their establishment. To either course there could have been no Constitutional objection, if nothing but the main object could have been kept in view. "As a general rule," said President Washington in his annual address of December 7, 1796, "manufactures on the public account are inexpedient; but where the state of things in a country leaves little hope that certain branches of manufacture will, for a great length of time, obtain, when these are of a nature essential to furnishing and equipping of the public force in time of war, are not establishments for procuring them on public account, to the extent of the ordinary demand for the public service, recommended by strong considerations * * * as an exception to the general rule?” But Congress disregarded the implied recommendation; increased tariff rates on clothing, cordage, cotton goods, gunpowder, iron manufactures, pewter plates and dishes, saddles, sail cloth, salt, and some other articles; and continued the 10 per cent discrimination against foreign ships. About this time it began to dawn on the minds of some that the purpose of the manufacturers was to quarter themselves permanently on the agricultural and other classes of the people. Hence opposition sprang up, and the Constitutional powers of Congress were called in question. It was denied that the Federal Government was organized for the purpose of meddling with the occupations of the people, or of taxing one class of the people for the enrichment of another. The first serious opposition to protection on this ground appeared in Congress when Mr. Clay's "American system" was introduced in 1824; but unfortunately that was the year when the field was full of candidates for the Presidency, and personal ambition obscured the path of duty. Among those who voted for the "American system," and who afterwards were more or less identified with the tariff contest, was Andrew Jackson, a Senator from Tennessee, and a prominent candidate for the Presidency. The bill was passed by four majority in the Senate, and five in the House, the division being mainly between the South on one side, and the North on the other. Naturally the strife went from the halls of Congress into the States. On the 24th of December, 1827, the Legislature of Georgia denounced the tariff act of 1824 as unconstitutional, and threatened resistance to its execution in that State. About the same time the Legislature of South Carolina instituted a committee to inquire into the powers of the Federal Government, in reference to the tariff and also in reference to internal improvements, schemes for which were then beginning to be devised for the purpose, in part, of necessitating high taxes. The report of the committee, which received the sanction of both houses December, 1827, recited the conditions on which the States had entered into the Union; and declared that whenever the terms of the compact were violated, it was the right of the people and of their State Legislature to remonstrate, etc.; denied the right of Congress to appropriate the public money for the construction of roads, canals, etc., within the States; denounced the tariff act of 1824 as unconstitutional; and asserted that whenever "the Constitution was violated in spirit, and not literally, there was a peculiar propriety in the State Legislature's undertaking to decide for itself, inasmuch as the Constitution had not provided any remedy." These remonstrances against protective tariffs and misappropriations of public moneys, known to be in accordance with public sentiment in the other Southern States, were transmitted to the Congress in the hope that a spirit of justice, if not solicitude for the perpetuity of the Union, would lead to a satisfactory modification of the laws.' But the year 1828-another year for Presidential candidates to exhibit their patriotismdashed all these hopes. Congress was deluged with memorials from the hungry manufacturers; many manu1Opposition to the "American system" was not confined to the South when it first began to threaten the tranquillity of the Union. "In 1827," says M. M. Trumbull's Free-Trade Struggle in England, page 13, "when our 'infant industries' were much more infantile than they are now, a committee of the citizens of Boston thus protested against the injustice of a protective tariff. They declared it false to say that 'dear goods made at home are better than cheap ones made abroad; that capital and labor can not be employed in this country without protective duties; that it is patriotic to tax the many for the benefit of the few; that it is just to aid by legislation manufactures that do not succeed without it; that we ought to sell to other nations, but never buy from them.' They go on to say 'these are, we have long since known, fundamental principles among the advocates of the American system. It is, however, extraordinary that these ancient and memorable maxims, sprung from the darkest ages of ignorance and barbarism, should take their last refuge here.' facturers-no farmers-were examined by the Committee on Manufactures, "and on the 31st of January (1828), after spending four weeks in these inquiries, they made a report"; a bill was framed and passed increasing "the rate of duties" on many articles and lowering it on none. The evident helplessness of the Southern people, since the Constitution provided no tribunal in which they could successfully attack an act of Congress which, with a title concealing its real purpose, was within the language of the Constitution, induced Hon. William Drayton, of South Carolina, to offer an amendment to the bill, declaring what its real purpose was; but the protectionists, afraid of the Supreme Court, refused to accept it. During this and the next year North Carolina, Alabama, and Virginia joined in condemning the policy of protection, and the two latter declared their assent to the doctrine of nullification (in the Virginia House by a vote of 134 to 68). In the midst of the discontent the Presidential election resulted in the choice of Andrew Jackson, a Southern man and a native of South Carolina; and a glimmer of hope came to the people. This hope was strengthended when in his inaugural address March 4, 1829, he expressed this sentiment: "With regard to a proper selection of the subjects of impost, with a view to revenue, it would seem to me that the spirit of equity, caution, and compromise, in which the Constitution was formed, requires that the great interests of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures should be equally favored." And again in his first 1 There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the Government to favor "agriculture, commerce, and manufactures" any more than rail-splitting; and it is impossible to favor one industry without burdening all others. * * annual message to Congress December 8, 1829, he said: "In deliberating, therefore, on these interesting subjects" the tariff rates-"local feelings and prejudices should be merged in the patriotic determination to promote the great interests of the whole. All attempts to connect them with party conflicts of the day are necessarily injurious, and should be discountenanced. * Legislation, subjected to such influences, can never be just, and will not long retain the sanction of the people, etc. Discarding all calculations of political ascendency, the North, the South, the East, and the West should unite in diminishing any burden of which either may justly complain.” But nothing was done during that session of the Congress, and hope was deferred till the next winter session. A new question, however, was brought forward in Congress in the latter part of January, 1830, which was destined to overshadow the tariff. Seeing no prospect of relief, through the courts, from any burdens that might be imposed on their constituents by the representatives of the protected and bounty-fed classes in the Northern States, some of the Southern members of Congress- notably Senator Hayne, of South Carolina-began a discussion of the terms on which the States had agreed to form a Union; of the sources of power in the Federal Government; and of the right of a State to interpose and arrest the execution of any Federal measure oppressive to its citizens and violative of the Constitution, and as a last resort to withdraw from the Union. This was an unfortunate move, aside from any merit in it; it united against those who held Mr. Hayne's opinions many of the honest and sincere friends of the Union and all those who were, or hoped to be, beneficiaries of Federal legislation. Naturally, a champion of the Union was sought for; and he was found in Daniel |