Sir, the volume which records the proceedings and debates of the first session of the House of Representatives lies before me.  I open it, and I find that, having provided for the administration of the necessary oaths, the very first measure proposed for consideration is, the laying of imposts; and in the very first committee of the whole into which the House of Representatives ever resolved itself, on this its earliest subject, and in this its very first debate, the duty of so laying the imposts as to encourage manufactures was advanced and enlarged upon by almost every speaker, and doubted or denied by none.  The first gentleman who suggests this as the clear duty of Congress, and as an object necessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitzsimons, of Pennsylvania; the second, Mr. White, of VIRGINIA; the third, Mr. Tucker, of SOUTH CAROLINA.

But the great leader, Sir, on this occasion, was Mr. Madison.  Was he likely to know the intentions of the Convention and the people?  Was he likely to understand the Constitution?  At the second sitting of the committee, Mr. Madison explained his own opinions of the duty of Congress, fully and explicitly.  I must not detain you, Sir, with more than a few short extracts from these opinions, but they are such as are clear, intelligible, and decisive.  “The States,” says he, “that are most advanced in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their particular interest attended to, in some degree.  While these States retained the power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to cherish such institutions.  By adopting the present Constitution, they have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands; they must have done this with an expectation that those interests would not be neglected here.”  In another report of the same speech, Mr. Madison is represented as using still stronger language; as saying that, the Constitution having taken this power away from the States and conferred it on Congress, it would be a fraud on the States and on the people were Congress to refuse to exercise it.

Mr. Madison argues, Sir, on this early and interesting occasion, very justly and liberally, in favor of the general principles of unrestricted commerce.  But he argues, also, with equal force and clearness, for certain important exceptions to these general principles.  The first, Sir, respects those manufactures which had been brought forward under encouragement by the State governments.  “It would be cruel,” says Mr. Madison, “to neglect them, and to divert their industry into other channels; for it is not possible for the hand of man to shift from one employment to another without being injured by the change.”  Again:  “There may be some manufactures which, being once formed, can advance towards perfection without any adventitious aid; while others, for want of the fostering hand of government, will be unable to go on at all.  Legislative provision, therefore,