part of the world; and that, even then, the numbers thus employed bear an inconsiderable proportion to the whole mass of population. Were we to become the manufacturers of other nations, effects of the same kind might result. But if we limit our efforts, by our own wants, the evils apprehended would be found to be chimerical. The invention and improvement of machinery, dispensing in a great degree with manual labor; and the employment of those persons, who, if we were engaged in the pursuit of agriculture alone, would be either unproductive, or exposed to indolence and immorality, will enable us to supply our own wants without withdrawing our attention from agriculture-that first and greatest source of national wealth and happiness. . . . It is certainly desireble, that the exports of the country should continue to be the surplus production of tillage, and not become those of manufacturing establishments. But it is important to diminish our imports: to furnish ourselves with clothing, made by our own industry; and to cease to be dependent, for the very coats we wear, upon a foreign and perhaps inimical country. The nation that imports its clothing from abroad is but little less dependent than if it imported its bread. . Clay's Speeches, I., pp. 195, 196.

Fourteen years later Clay made his first really great speech on the tariff. Webster responded, and the two speeches may be regarded as classics on the subject. Clay had not been silent on the topic in the preceding years, but none of these earlier speeches had added much of value to the discussion. Now in 1824 he says:

Two classes of politicians divide the people of the United States. According to the system of one, the produce of foreign industry should be subjected to no other impost than such as may be necessary to provide a public revenue; According to the system of the other class, whilst they agree that the imposts should be mainly relied on as a fit and convenient source of public revenue, they would so adjust and arrange the duties on foreign fabrics as to afford a

gradual but adequate protection to American industry, and lessen our dependence on foreign nations, by securing a certain and ultimately a cheaper and better supply of our own wants from our Own abundant resources. Both classes are equally sincere, in their respective opinions, equally honest, equally patriotic, and equally desirous of advancing the prosperity of the country.

In casting our eyes around us, the most prominent circumstance which fixes our attention, and challenges our deepest regret, is the general distress which pervades the whole country. This distress pervades

every part of the union, every class of society; . what, again I would ask, is the CAUSE of the unhappy condition of our country, which I have faintly de. picted? It is to be found in the fact that, during almost the whole existence of this government, we have shaped our industry, our navigation, and our commerce, in reference to an extraordinary war in Europe, and to foreign markets, which no ionger exist; in the fact that we have depended too much upon foreign sources of supply, and excited too little the native:

Both the inability and the policy of foreign powers, then, forbid us to rely upon the foreign market, as being an adequate vent for the surplus produce of American labor.

Our agriculture is our greatest interest. It ought ever to be predominant. All others should bend to it. Can we do nothing to invigorate it; nothing to correct the errors of the past, and to brighten the still more unpromising prospects which lie before us? . . . We have seen, that an exclusive dependence on the foreign market must lead to still severer distress, to impoverishment, to ruin. We must then change somewhat our course. We must give a new direction to some portion of our industry. We must speedily adopt a genuine American policy. Still cherishing the foreign market, let us create also a home market, to give further scope to the consumption of the produce of American industry.

The creation of a home market is not only necessary to procure for our agriculture a just reward of its labor, but it is indispensable to obtain a supply of our necessary wants. If we cannot sell, we cannot bay..

Mr. Chairman, our confederacy comprehends, within its vast limits, great diversity of interests; agriculture, planting, farming, commercial, navigating, fishing, manufacturing. All these great interests are confided to the protection of one government to the fate of one ship; If we prosper, and are happy, protection must be

extended to all; it is due to all. side read Webster's reply.]— 441, 442, 443, 446, 450, 478.

[For the other (lay's Speeches, I,

Eight years now pass away before we again notice Clay's position on the tariff. He had made many speeches in the meantime, but all were in harmony with the one quoted for 1824. January 11, 1832, he moved the following resolution, and then addressed the Senate in its support:

Resolved, that the existing duties upon articles imported from foreign countries, and not coming into competition with similar articles made or produced within the United States, ought to be forthwith abolished, except the duties upon wines and silks, and that these ought to be reduced.

He then says:

It forms no part of my present purpose to enter into a consideration of the established policy of protection. Although it may be impracticable to say what the exact amount of the public revenue should be for the future,

we may safely assume that the revenue may now be reduced, and considerably reduced. This reduction may be effected in various ways and on different principles. Only three modes shall now be noticed.

First, to reduce duties on all articles in the same ratio, without regard to the principle of protection. Second, to retain them on the unprotected articles, and augment them on the protected articles, and, Third, to abolish and reduce the duties on unprotected articles, retaining and enforcing the faithful collection of those on the protected articles.

To the first mole there are insuperable objections. It would lead inevitably to the destruction of our home manufactures.

The second would be still more objectionable to the fces of the tariff than either of the others.

The consequence of such an augmentation would be a great dimunition in the importation of the foregoing article, and of course of the duties upon it. But against entire prohibition, except perhaps in a few instances, I have been always and still am opposed. By leaving the door open to the foreign rival article, the benefit is secured of a salutary competition. If it be hermetically closed, the danger is incurred of monopoly.

The third mode is the most equitable and reasonable. It exacts no sacrifice of principle from the opponents of the American System, it comprehends none on the part of its friends. Clay's Speeches, Vol. I, pp. 614, 619, 620.

These resolutions and this speech brought forth a long debate. In reply to General Hayne, of South Carolina, Clay made the longest speech of his life on the tariff. For three days he discussed the question. Of course only a few extracts can be here given:

When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradual destruction of the American system, what is their substitute? Free trade? Free trade! The call for free trade is as una vailing, as the cry of a spoiled child in its nurse's arms, for the moon, or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It never has existed, it never will exist. Trade implies at least two parties. To be free, it should be fair, equal, and reciprocal. But if we throw our ports wide open to the admission of foreign productions, free of all duty, what ports of any other foreign nations shall we find open to the free admission of our surplus produce? We may break down all barriers to free trade on our part, but the work will not be complete, until foreign powers shall have removed theirs. There would be freedom on one side, and restrictions, prohibitions, and exclusions on the other. The bolts and the bars

and the chains of all other nations will remain undisturbed.

. . I will now, Mr. President, proceed to a more particular consideration of the arguments urged against the protective system, It is alleged, that the system operates prejudicially to the cotton planter, by diminishing the foreign demand for this staple; that we cannot sell to Great Britain unless we buy from her; that the import duty is equivalent to an export duty, and falls upon the cotton grower; that South Carolina pays a disproportionate quota of the public revenue; that an abandonment of the protective policy would lead to an augmentation of our exports; of an amount not less than one hundred and fifty millions of dollars; and finally that the South cannot partake of the advantages of manufacturing, if there be any.

I conclude this part of the argument with the hope that my humble exertions have not been altogether unsuccessful in showing,

First, That the policy we have been considering ought to continue to be regarded as the genuine American system.

Secondly, That the free trade system, which is proposed as its substitute, ought really to be considered as the British colonial system.

Thirdly, That the American system is beneficial to all parts of the Union, and absolutely necessary to much the larger portion.

Fourthly, that the price of the great staple of cotton, and of all our chief productions of agriculture, has been sustained, and a decline averted, by the protective system.

Fifthly, that if the foreign demand for cotton has been at all diminished, . . the diminution has been more than compensated, in the additional demand created at home.

Sixthly, That the constant tendency of the system, by creating competition among ourselves, and between American and European industry, is to re

duce prices of manufactured objects.

they

Eighthly, That if, in a season of peace, these benefits are experienced, in a season of war, would be much more extensively felt.