Webster, Daniel (1782-1852) to James William Paige
High-resolution images are available to schools and libraries via subscription to American History, 1493-1943. Check to see if your school or library already has a subscription. Or click here for more information. You may also order a pdf of the image from us here.
Gilder Lehrman Collection #: GLC01946.16 Author/Creator: Webster, Daniel (1782-1852) Place Written: Washington, D.C. Type: Autograph letter signed Date: 30 June 1832 Pagination: 3 p. : 25.5 x 20.3 cm. Order a Copy
Informs his brother-in-law that the 1832 tariff is before Senate; claims the tariff protects cotton interests, flannels, ingrain and Venetian carpets. Assumes the "Tariff Gentlemen" will likely approve the bill, though much rests on the wish of President Andrew Jackson. Claims he almost agreed with a man from "the other side" in order to return home expediently. In a post script, states that the House of Representatives defeated a postponement of the Bank Bill, with 75 votes in agreement and 100 against.
Webster supported Nicholas Biddle, Director of the Second Bank of the United States in the 1832 proposal for a governmental recharter; Jackson vetoed the Bill. The 1832 Tariff Bill questioned South Carolina's right to nullify national tariffs imposed upon goods.
Washington June 30.'32
Dear Wm.
I thank you for your kind intentions in regard to taking care of my wife. I suppose she must now be in Boston, altho' I have not heard from her, for almost a week. When she wrote me last, she was going to [Hesman] LeRoy's (on Monday) & to return & take Wednesday's boat. I have not heard from her since; [struck: but] it is possible something may have detained her, at [Hesmans] -
She wd. naturally have written me on her return, before embarking for Boston.
If she shall have arrived among you, I think it will be quite well for her to stay in Boston a little while, or even to go to Cherry Hill for [2] for a few days, should she so incline, & should the Cholera be not alarming you.
The tariff is now before the Senate. You will see that it continues the protection to the cotton interests, pretty effectually. The flannels stand well, & the carpets pretty well, tho' I see no great reason for so great a difference between ingrain & Venetian. There will be an attempt in the Senate to make sundry amendments; especially one respecting woolen cloths, which fair badly. It is doubtful, whether we can do much. The Tariff Gentlemen, belonging to the Admin party, will be likely to go for the Bill, as it is; as it is understood that [much] is the wish of the President.
The Bank [illegible] may, probably, be taken up today in [W. C. R.] - I do not think it will occupy a great deal of time. - My opinion [3] is it will pass the House, & be [negated] By the President.
If Mrs. W. is with you, tell her, my only reason for not writing her, is, I do not know where she is. If I should leave, today, tho' Mr. C. White, or otherwise, of her having left N. York, I will yet write her by this mail. I came very near agreeing, yesterday, to pair off, with a Gentleman on the other side, & go home, at once. But I did not know what might be thought of such [account] & therefore gave up of the idea.
P.S. 4 oclock. -
Not . in H. of R. [illegible] [illegible] Bill indefinitely - lock - Ayes, 75, Noes 100
D. W.
Citation Guidelines for Online Resources
The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.