will be necessary to collect the proper objects for this purpose; and this will form another exception to my general principle.”  And again:  “The next exception that occurs is one on which great stress is laid by some well-informed men, and this with great plausibility; that each nation should have, within itself, the means of defence, independent of foreign supplies; that, in whatever relates to the operations of war, no State ought to depend upon a precarious supply from any part of the world.  There may be some truth in this remark; and therefore it is proper for legislative attention.”

In the same debate, Sir, Mr. Burk, from SOUTH CAROLINA, supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encouraging its growth on the strong lands of South Carolina.  “Cotton,” he said, “was also in contemplation among them, and, if good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed.”  Afterwards, Sir, the cotton was obtained, its culture was protected, and it did succeed.  Mr. Smith, a very distinguished member from the SAME STATE, observed:  “It has been said, and justly, that the States which adopted this Constitution expected its administration would be conducted with a favorable hand.  The manufacturing States wished the encouragement of manufactures, the maritime States the encouragement of ship-building, and the agricultural States the encouragement of agriculture.”

Sir, I will detain the Senate by reading no more extracts from these debates.  I have already shown a majority of the members of SOUTH CAROLINA, in this very first session, acknowledging this power of protection, voting for its exercise, and proposing its extension to their own products.  Similar propositions came from Virginia; and, indeed, Sir, in the whole debate, at whatever page you open the volume, you find the power admitted, and you find it applied to the protection of particular articles, or not applied, according to the discretion of Congress.  No man denied the power, no man doubted it; the only questions were, in regard to the several articles proposed to be taxed, whether they were fit subjects for protection, and what the amount of that protection ought to be.  Will gentlemen, Sir, now answer the argument drawn from these proceedings of the first Congress?  Will they undertake to deny that that Congress did act on the avowed principle of protection?  Or, if they admit it, will they tell us how those who framed the Constitution fell, thus early, into this great mistake about its meaning?  Will they tell us how it should happen that they had so soon forgotten their own sentiments and their own purposes?  I confess I have seen no answer to this argument, nor any respectable attempt to answer it.  And, Sir, how did this debate terminate?  What law was passed?  There it stands, Sir, among the statutes, the second law in the book.  It has a preamble, and that preamble expressly recites, that the duties which it imposes are laid “for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures.”  Until, Sir, this early legislation, thus coeval with the Constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be explained away, no man can doubt of the meaning of that instrument in this respect.