ship-yards amounted to 383,805 tons against a tonnage of 273,226 tons built in the year 1871, a decline of thirty-one per cent., and as compared with population a decline of forty-six per cent.

During this period our foreign imports rose from $234,434,167 in 1865, to $541,493,708 in 1871, showing that we purchased in the last year largely more than double from foreign countries what we did in 1865. More exactly stated, our imports increased in six years one hundred and thirty-one per cent. Our exports rose from $306,306,758 in value in 1865 to $562,518,651 in 1871, showing an increase of $256,211,893, an increase equal to eightythree per cent. Thus it appears that our increase of imports was fifty-eight per cent. greater than the per cent. increase of our exports. These figures and statements show very clearly that while the people have responded to your tax gatherers, and your Treasury has been filled to overflowing, our tonnage has declined thirty per cent. Our ship-building, then depressed, has fallen off forty-six per cent., and the per cent. increase of our foreign purchases largely exceeds the per cent. increase of our sales to foreign countries; but, sir, they do not so clearly disclose the burdens which are imposed upon the shoulders of the consumer and tax-payer. Gold is the only measure of values known to the commercial world, and in estimating the weight of taxation in any given period, unless the fact that gold is the only recognized measure of values is considered, a very incorrect conclusion must of necessity be the result, and especially so when a depreciated paper cur rency enters into the fiscal operations of the country. In 1865 the customs receipts into the Treasury were $84,928,260 in coin. The receipts from all other sources of revenue amounted to $237,075,897 in currency, which, when reduced to its gold value, with gold at 160, or above, as it was in the fiscal year 1865, amounted to $148,172,410, which, added to the receipts from customs, made the whole revenues of the Government for that year in gold $233,132,670, while for the fiscal year 1871 there was collected from customs the sum of $206,270,408 in coin, and from other sources $168,160,695 in currency, which, reduced to coin value, with gold at 112, would make the sum of $150,145,437, making the whole revenues of that year, estimated in gold, the sum of $356,313,845, showing an increase of $123,181,175, being over fifty-two per cent. increase of taxation in six years, and making due allowance for increase of population, the taxes of 1871 was thirty-seven per cent. greater than in 1865. And yet, sir, the people have been constantly assured by men in high position, speaking for the Administration and for the dominant party, that the country was prosperous, the Government honestly and economically administered, and that taxation was being reduced.

Mr. Chairman, during the period i have been speaking of the duties imposed by our tariff laws were the highest ever known in any period of the existence of our Government. They have been confessedly protective in their character, and if there is any "virtue in the principles of protection as advocated by American protectionists, such virtue ought to be found flourishing since 1865. We have already seen that the first result of these high tariff exactions has been to largely increase the burdens of the people by swelling their taxes; a closer examination will disclose the further fact, that under the operation of these laws they have been made to bear vastly greater indirect and onerously unequal burdens.

The contributions which are levied upon the people to secure the needful revenues for an honest and economical administration of the Government, when so levied as to rest uniformly upon all without favoritism toward any class or condition, are not to be complained of by the citizen; but when they are so levied

and exacted that capital is relieved at the expense of labor, when monopolists are favored and enriched at the expense of and to the detriment of the consumer, then there is just cause of complaint, for the reason that taxation is not uniform, and does not rest with equal weight upon all.

The theory of protection is based upon the assumption that it is necessary and a wise political economy to foster home manufactures by imposing a tax upon all manufactured articles of foreign countries offered for sale in the United States, so that they shall be so increased in price when placed in the American market that the American manufacturer, selling his wares at the same price as the foreign article, increased by the addition of the tariff tax, shall be able to realize a profit, and thereby be induced to continue and extend bis manufactures. Without stopping to inquire into the correctness of this theory at this point, I will call attention to the cost which the great body of the people have been paying as the price for protection under our present tariff laws, which are arranged upon the principle that it is a good and wise policy to lay burdens upon the whole people for the benefit of ten per cent. of our population, as it is well known that less than ten per cent. of our population are connected with protected industries.

The value of foreign importations into the United States of iron and steel, and their manufactures, which entered into consump tion in the year ending June 30, 1871, was $43,425,995, and the import duty paid upon these imported products and manufactures amounted to $18,658,683. During the same year there was produced and manufactured in the United States, which also entered into our home consumption under the heads of pig iron, railroad iron, merchantable bar and rod iron, plate, sheet, and hoop iron, nails and spikes, axles and like articles, old rails and scrap iron and steel, all of which may be classed as primary products, in value not less than $200,000,000.

To protect these primary productions and manufactures of iron and steel in that year we imposed a tax of $18,658,683 upon foreign importations of iron and steel and their manufactures, a tax equal to forty-three per cent. upon invoice valuation, before allowing the imported article to be placed on sale in our markets. And now, sir, what was the result of the imposition of such duty? We added fortythree per cent. to the value of foreign imports of iron and steel at the custom-house, and put $18,658,683 coin drawn from the consumer into the Government Treasury, and in doing this enabled our own iron-masters to place upon the market and sell their product for $286,000,000, which without this duty they would have sold for only $200,000,000, or the cost and reason. able profits of its production, thereby enabling them to put into their pockets $86,000,000, which was also drawn from the consumer.

Thus the protection of our iron interest and industries in only their primary productions cost the whole people in one year $18,658,683 in duties paid to the Government, and $86,000,000 in the enhancement of the home product consumed by the people, which went as a royalty to the protected iron-master. In this way forty million people are made to pay a protective tribute upon the primary productions of iron and steel, that the one per cent. engaged in their production may be enriched at the expense of the ninety-nine per cent. ; taking, by the operation of your tariff laws, $86,000,000 in one year from the whole body of consumers, and giving it to the one per cent. engaged in the production of iron and steel, in the enhancement of the value of their pro. ductions.

Now, let us look at another article, and its manufactures of large consumption in this country, one of prime necessity among all classes and conditions of the people-wool

and the manufactures of wool. In the fiscal year 1871 the importation of wool and woolen manufactures consumed in the United States at invoice values amounted to $52,766,068. The domestic manufactures of wool for that year may be safely estimated at $175,000,000, including cost of production and the usual interest for capital invested; so that this amount represents the cost value of the manufactured product in first hands, when ready to be placed upon the market. We collected at our custom-houses in 1871 upon imported wool and woolen fabrics $33,539,574, equal to sixty. three per cent. upon the invoice price of the whole importation entering into our consump. tion. The imported article and the domestic article were sold in the same market at equal prices for the same quality of goods. One was enhanced sixty-three cents upon each dollar of its first cost by the tariff duty which it paid at the custom-house, while the other was sold to the consumer at sixty-three cents advance upon each dollar of its cost value above what it would have been sold in the absence of protection. The result is the people paid into the Treasury $33,539,475, and to the manufacturers of domestic woolens, in the enhance. ment of their fabrics to the consumer, the further sum of $110,250,000 in currency, as the price of protecting our industries in wool and manufactures of wool for one year.

Take another article of universal consumption, the manufactures of cotton. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, the value of foreign importations of the manufactures of cotton entering into our consumption, as shown by the custom reports, was $28,587,994, upon which we paid import duties amounting to $10,773,832, an average of over forty per cent. The value of our home manufactures in first hands is estimated by competent authority at $70,000,000. The foreign and domestic production were sold to the consumer in the same market, like articles at equal prices; the one pays as a privilege of entering such market forty per cent. upon its invoice value, which is supposed to be its cost value, which is added to its price to the consumer; the other is thereby enabled to add forty per cent., the margin of its protection, which is also exacted of the consumer. In this way, sir, under the the operations of your revenue laws in 1871, the consumers in the United States upon their consumption of the one article ofcotton manufactures, paid for protection $10,773,832 coin into the Treasury, and $28,000,000 into the pockets of the owners of cotton-mills in this country.

Take one more article as an illustration of the operation of protective tariff: in the same year the value of imported hides, leather, and the manufactures of leather consumed in this country amounted to $23,983,826, upon which we paid duties to the Government to the amount of $5,282,857, an average of twenty-two per cent. The value of the home product of hides, leather, and the manufactures of leather for that year may be safely stated at $175,000,000, which is cost in first hands. The margin of protection being twenty two per cent., enabled the home manufacturers to add that to their product, and exact it of the consumer. Otherwise the importer would be compelled to sell the foreign article at a loss, and importations would at once cease. Thus again, in addition to the $5,282,857 which the people paid as the price charged importers of hides, leather, and the manufac tures of leather for offering their wares in American markets, they also paid the home manufacturers some $38,500,000 in the enhancement of their wares under tariff protection.

In this way, in order to protect the four great manufacturing interests, the production of iron and steel, the manufacture of woolens, cotton, and leather, the people of the United States who consume these products and manufactures in one year paid into the Treasury

$68,254,946 in coin, and by the enhancement of these great leading and primary articles of consumption produced and manufactured at home they also paid to the American producer and manufacturer the sum of $262,500,000 in currency.

It may be urged that these estimates are more of a theoretic character than a matter of actual or practical result under the operations of our revenue laws. But, sir, whether the amount of $262,500,000 is really a correct estimate and measure of the actual profits and clear accumulations of those engaged in these manufactures or not, it cannot be doubted that it does represent the amount which these products and manufactures have been increased in cost to the consumer.

When you lay forty-three per cent. protective duty upon the importations of iron and steel and their manufactures as a means of protecting the American producer, it cannot be denied that such a regulation enables him to sell for one hundred and forty-three cents that which without such protection he must otherwise sell for one hundred cents. And when you lay sixty-three per cent. upon wool and the manufactures of wool coming into our markets from foreign parts, it cannot be denied that you put it in the power of the home manufacturer to compel the consumer to pay one hundred and sixty-three cents for that which in the absence of your tariff he would be able to buy at one hundred cents; and so of every other article which is the subject of protection by the imposition of a tariff duty. This is the very intent and purpose of the law; this is what protection means when stripped of all its sophistry and false reasoning and assumptions.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a list of articles of every-day consumption with the per cent. of duty which each article pays annexed. I have prepared it with care, and it will be found correct, I think:

Salt......

Plain bleached domestics.

Plain brown domestics.

Per cent. .851@139 1-6

Denims, bed-tickings, and ginghams.......30

Glass, common window.

.37}

..50%

Prints.

..55 @ 601

Linens..

.30 @ 40

.49$

Gunpowder.

.30 @ 491

Hats and bonnets of straw, chip, or palm

leaf

.40

It requires but a glance at this list to be able to see the extent to which the consumer is burdened by tariff duties which relentlessly exact tribute from the wants and necessities of the people instead of the wealth of the nation to supply your Treasury. All, the poor as well as the rich, must eat, be clothed and have shoes upon their feet, while the artisan, the mechanic and the farmer must have the necessary implements to pursue their avoca tions, and it is upon these necessities that the heavy hand of protective exaction is placed, so that pressed upon the one hand by their daily wants, and upon the other by taxation, which only makes their needs a greater burden, the middle and poorer classes of the country are ground as "between the upper and nether millstone," while wealth, aggregate, corporate and individual wealth, enjoying an immunity of protection, laughs at their oppression, and year by year makes new additions of ill-gotten gains.

To further illustrate the operation of the tariff laws under which we have been living and are now living, I have prepared a table,

Mr. Chairman, the injustice of such a system of taxation is difficult of reconciliation with any principle of equity or just statesmanship, and can in fact only be justified upon the principle that might makes right. I know that the plea is made in favor of high tariffs as a means of protecting American labor against the pauper labor of Europe and to sustain our own industries against the cheaper industries of other countries; but, sir, protective laws defeat their own declared object, except so far as they are the means of filling your Treasury with gold wrung from the labor of the country. Ever since the close of the war of 1812 we have been experimenting with tariff legislation. We have had high tariffs and low tariffs, protection and free trade, and the statistics of fifty-six years, from 1816 to the present time, alternating with periods of protection and non-protection, will verify the statement that our greatest strides of prosperity and the most rapid development of our industrial and commercial interests have been notably during non protective periods, or in times of our lowest tariff laws.

And, sir, an examination of the workings, and even the principles as claimed of protective tariffs will at once disclose the reasons for this. A high-tariff law is enacted, laying duties upon a wide range of articles professedly to foster industrial pursuits. Everything it touches is enhanced, for this is the purpose and object of the law, and also its necessary effect. Now, mark the results. The mechanic, artisan, and operative having to pay higher prices for all they consume, must have higher wages in order to keep body and soul together, the effort to secure higher wages not unfrequently ending in strikes and a general interruption

of business. On the other hand, the manufacturer, paying more for his labor, higher prices for the materials which enter into his manufactured products, must charge all these advances in the cost of his wares, only to find that when he thought himself securely protected the foreign manufacturer enters the market, paying high duties, and sells in competition with him at the very door of his own establishment, and forthwith the home manu facturer flies to Congress for more protection. As an illustration of this fact look at the statistics of only the last fiscal year. Take the article of leather. Nearly everything which enters into the manufacture of leather is taxed from ten to thirty-eight per cent., and the currier, working under a tariff averaging from forty-four to forty eight per cent. upon over three thousand articles, finds his labor enhanced in cost, and when his leather is ready for the market, he enjoys thirty-five per cent. protection, and yet the French, the German, and other foreign manufacturers pay this thirty-five per cent. duty and compete with him in his own market. Follow the product into another form of manufacture, boots and shoes. Nearly thirty per cent. additional material is used which pays duty or is enhanced in value from twelve to one hundred per cent.; new additions of labor are made, also enhanced by the operations of tariff laws; so that at every change in the form of the product the weight of tariff exaction is increased, and it is found necessary to give additional protection, and yet after you have piled protection upon protection, repeating it at every stage of transformation from the crude material to the finished article, the American manufacturer finds the foreign article paying all your duties and competing with him in the market, while all export is rendered impossible. Why, sir, in 1871 the foreign imports of leather and the manufactures of leather which went into the consumption of this country, paying all your duties, were $10,552,155.

Take the article of wool and manufactures of wool. You impose a duty ranging from forty-two and a half per cent. on unwashed wool to one hundred and fifteen aud a half on washed, as a protection to wool-growers. The manufacturer of woolen fabrics pays heavily in advance cost of his machinery into the construction of which iron so largely enters which is heavily protected; he employs labor which is necessarily enhanced in price by a tariff Thus upon everything the laborer consumes. taxed at every turn, upon his raw material, upon his machinery, and his labor enhanced in cost, he finds, when his fabrics are ready for the markets, and his profits added, that a protection of sixty three per cent. upon his manufactured product will not keep out the foreign fabrics. Why, sir, with all your machinery of tariff duties to prop, sustain, and encourage American manufactures of woolens and to hold the home market for home manufactures, foreign importations keep a steady pace with your tariff laws.

In 1871 there was consumed in the United States $42,860,037 worth of foreign woolen fabrics, paying an average of forty-three per cent. duty, which aggregated $29,024,372; and with gold at 112 these products estimated in currency could not have been worth less, with importer's profits added, than $80,000,000. In this I have not included the raw wool imported in that year which amounted to $9,906,031, and paid $4,515,103 duty. If we look at our iron manufactures and their sta tistics we shall find similar results.

The first form of the crude material, pig iron, is protected by a tariff of forty and seven eighths per cent. It goes to the rolling-mil., is transformed to bar, rolled, or hammered iron, and is again protected from fifty and one eighth to sixty-four and three quarters per cent., according to size and shape. If wrought into railroad iron it is protected forty-three per cent. And yet, sir, with all this imposi

tion of duties as so many securities to our iron interest and its attendant industries, and with twenty-five per cent. natural protection in addition, foreign importations are not lessened but constantly increase. The statistics of our customs show that in 1871 we consumed of foreign iron and steel and their manufactures $68,084,172 in value, which, if reduced to currency, and importer's profits added, would have made the foreign product in value not less than $75,000,000 or $80,000,000.

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of the Treasury in his last annual report very tersely states the condition of our shipping interests in these words:

owners.'

*

"Returns for the fiscal year 1870-71 show that the ocean commerce of the United States is passing rapidly into the hands of foreign merchants and shipThe history of our own commerce, as shown in the statistics already given, renders it certain that without some efficient action on the part of the Government, the entire foreign trade of the country will soon pass into the hands of our rivals.

"The monopoly of the trade between the United States and Europe, by foreign merchants and shipbuilders carries with it the monopoly of ship-building for the entire world, and, as a consequence, the Atlantic trade, the trade of the Pacific, and the seas adjacent thereto, will be carried on in English-built steamers."

Mr. Chairman, this is a very plain statement of an unpleasant fact. A little over ten years ago we ranked side by side with England as a maritime Power, but now we are officially told that "without some efficient action on the part of the Government the entire foreign trade of the country will soon pass into the hands of our rivals." By what means, sir, have we reached this deplorable condition? The honorable Secretary says the causes are twofold:

"First, the destruction of American vessels by rebel cruisers during the war; and secondly, the substitution of iron steamships for the transportation of freight and passengers upon the ocean, in place of sailing vessels and steamships built of wood."

The first of these causes, however potent it may have been during the late war, ceased to operate when the Alabama went down before the Kearsarge.

The statistics of American shipping and ship-building show that confederate cruisers had far less to do with the decline of American commerce than your tariff laws. At the close of the fiscal year 1861 the tonnage of the United States was 5,539,813 tons. At the close of 1865 it was 5,096,781 tons-a decline of 343,032 tons in four years. In the next four years, ending with 1869, our tonnage had declined to 4,144,639 tons-a decrease of over one million tons in four years. During the first four years referred to, there were transferred of American tonnage to foreign nations 774,652 tons; and there was built in our shipyards tonnage to the amount of 1,285,506 tons. From 1865 to 1869 the tonnage sold to foreign countries was 64,025 tons, and the tonnage built in our ship-yards was 1,180,210, showing that the decline has been more rapid since the close of the war than during its progress.

Mr. Chairman, the "efficient action on the part of the Government" now proposed as a means of stopping further decline in American shipping and of regaining our commercial rank is the subsidizing of American built steamships at the rate of thirteen dollars per ton for five years. It has come to this, that while we have been protecting every other industry and interest, our shipping interests have been perishing, and Congress is now asked to increase still further the burdens of the people by subsidizing ship-building to save Ameri can commerce already dying under American protection.

From 1846 to 1861 the tonnage of the United States rose rapidly from 2,562,084 tons to 5,539,813 tons-a commercial growth unparalleled in any age of the world. This rapid growth occurred under a strictly revenue tariff, which was so low as to be stigmatized as a British free-trade tariff. From 1846 to 1857 the aver age duty was twenty four per cent, and from 42D CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 180.

1857 to 1861 only 13.8 per cent. upon all imports, and nineteen per cent. upon dutiable goods. Then our ship-yards were busy; night and day the sound of the shipwright was heard all along the indented Atlantic sea-board from Maine to Georgia. Our ship-builders and artisans were prosperous and contented, and our seamen laughed to scorn the boasted supremacy of the cross of St. George.

After sixteen years of low tariffs there came in an evil hour a change. In 1861 the tariff was revised and increased to an average of 26.7 per cent.; in 1862 it was further increased to an average of 32.2 per cent.; in 1863 it was again further increased to an average of 37.2 per cent.; in 1864 it was again increased to 43.7 per cent.; in 1865 to 46.06, and in 1867 finally raised to 47.86 per cent. And the statistics of ship-building during these ten years of high protection show that just in proportion as we have increased our tariff exactions, in that proportion have our shipping interests declined.

1840 there was an increase in the amount of pig iron produced of seventy-three and a half per cent., and from 1852 to 1860 there was an increase of seventy-five per cent. Both periods were under low tariffs, the last being the lowest of any since 1816, while from 1860 to 1869 the highest estimated increase is seventy-seven per cent. for nine years, being a less average per cent. than in either of the other cases.

The average price of pig iron in the city of New York, from 1850 to 1860, was $26 39 per ton, and sold in the last year, 1860, at an average of $23 15 per ton. This was under a low tariff, but under the increased tariff it rose to $46 25 per ton in 1865, equal to thirty dollars coin, and is now selling for fifty dollars, equal to $44 64 coin, an increase of nearly one hundred per cent. These facts and figures demonstrate that there is but the one obstacle in the way of the successful and profitable building of iron or wooden ships in the United States, that is our tariff laws. With an average duty of forty-three per cent. upon the materials which enter into the construction of ships, and labor enhanced at least thirty per cent. by tariff exactions, it is not to be wondered at that American ship-building has declined. If we would revive our commerce, we must repeal our protective tariff laws and return to low and strictly revenue duties. If we do this we shall again see our flag upon every ocean. The proposition to subsidize the building of American ships to engage in foreign commerce as a means of regaining our lost commercial rank is the crowning act of this vicious system, and a fitting end to this comedy of errors.

From 1846 to 1861, at least for a greater part of this time, ships could be built in the United States cheaper than in any part of the|| world, and a considerable per cent. of our ship-building was for foreign countries; but since the protective era began all this is changed. And how could it be otherwise, when everything of which ships are built must pay heavy tariff duties? Why, sir, the very timbers which enter into the construction of ships so largely must pay 20 per cent. duty; its iron not less than 43 per cent.; cables and chains, 44 per cent.; copper, 45 per cent.; hemp cables and cordage, 373 per cent.; rope from 174 to 27 per cent.; sail ducking, 35 per cent.; Mr. Chairman, another plea that is always oils and paints from 37 to 51 per cent.; and in the mouth of the protectionists is the sav the very bunting which floats at the mast-heading of our laborers from competition with the is taxed 117 per cent.

Depression, decline, and decay of our commerce is the legitimate and necessary results of these high protective tariffs, as they are termed. This conclusion is abundantly sup ported by the statistics of our shipping and ship-building all along from 1816 to the pres ent time. These records show that under low tariffs our commercial interest and ship-building have prospered most, while they have invariably retrograded or come to a stand-still during periods of high tariffs.

We are told, however, that it is not the tariff which so injuriously affects our ship-building, but that its decline in late years is entirely owing to the change from the use of wooden to iron ships for ocean service, which these apologists say occurred in the early years of the war. A slight examination of this apology will at at once dispel the illusion.

The building of iron ships began in 1855, and not in 1861. In 1856 the building of iron ships had so far succeeded in England as to cause a marked decline in ship-building in the United States, which decline, accelerated by the financial crash of 1857, continued until 1859, after which ship-building began to revive, and at the opening of the war iron ship building had been successfully and profitably entered upon in our yards. But since the war, under the operations of our excessively high tariffs, the building of iron steamships has almost, if not quite, ceased. There is no good reason why we cannot build iron ships as cheap as any other nation upon earth. No other country has the material in such inexhaustible quantities as ours, and our laborers and arti

sans

are certainly not behind any in the world; in fact, a superiority is almost universally claimed and accorded to them.

Why, sir, before the revolutionary war we produced iron for export to the mother country, and since the organization of the Govern. ment under the Constitution its production has always steadily, and I may say rapidly, increased under low tariffs; in fact, it is shown that the production of pig iron has increased more rapidly in periods of low tariff than in periods of high tariffs. Thus, from 1832 to

pauper labor of Europe, and doubtless this argument has drawn more support to the side of high tariffs than any other, and yet, sir, what benefit results to the laborer to increase his wages from one dollar per day to $1 50 or two dollars per day, if at the same time the cost of living is so increased that his increase of wages will have no greater purchasing power than his lower wages? This is precisely the result and working of high tariffs. A careful examination of the wages in 1860, and the price of necessaries and cost of living, as compared with 1871, will disclose the fact that the day's wages of 1871 will buy scarcely so much of the necessaries or luxuries of life as the day's wages would in 1860, and this is not only the practical but the logical working of protective tariffs.

There is another class, however, larger than all the others combined, which constitute by far the larger part of the great body of consumers, which have not been remembered by the protectionists. They are that large class engaged in agricultural pursuits. If they have been remembered it has been only that they could bear burdens and pay taxes. I know, sir, that it is claimed that by fostering our manufacturing interests, higher prices are secured for farm products. Here, again, the sophistry is answered by the fact that that which the farmer and farm laborer must purchase is also enhanced, often even beyond any incidental increase of the value of the pro duct of their labor. Besides, sir, the great staples of the farm and plantation, such as wheat, corn, and cotton, must always, at least for a long period of time to come, depend upon foreign markets.

The history of tariff legislation and the operation of tariff laws entirely refute and overthrow the idea that protection has ever in any way benefited agricultural pursuits. It may be shown that in addition to the increased cost of everything, the farmer must buy under high tariffs, his staple productions have almost invariably brought him a lower price in protective periods than in periods of non-protecAs an illustration of this I have here a table which gives the prevailing price of wool

tion.

As a further illustration, take the article of wheat. The market reports of our principal cities show the remarkable fact that with remarkable regularity for more than fifty years this staple product of the farm has uniformly gone up as our tariffs went down, and declined as our tariffs advanced. I have here a table showing the price of wheat in the city of New York from 1820 to 1869 by periods of ten years: 1820, under protection per bushel... 1830, under protection per bushel.. 1840, non-protection per bushel. 1850, non-protection per bushel. 1860, non-protection per bushel. 1869, protection, gold, per bushel..

..$1 00 106

1 10 125

150 106

I have here another table which I find in a work entitled "Does Protection Protect?" from which also the data in the two last tables I have given were taken, giving the price of flour during various periods from 1839 to 1867: Average price of flour.

..$5 45 4 46 4 47 4.94

6 13

Four years, from 1839 to 1842, (free trade.). Four years, from 1843 to 1846, (protection,). Eight years, from 1854 to 1861, (free trade,). Six years, from 1862 to 1867, (protection,). Average price for twelve years under free trade. Average price for ten years under protection.... 4 75 These illustrations might be extended, but they are quite sufficient to establish the fact that the great staple products of the farm have always found the best market under the lowest tariff; and therefore it is true that every effort to levy protective duties is so much tax upon agriculture.

But, Mr. Chairman, the whole burden is not, as I have heretofore shown, confined to the duties levied. Who, sir, can estimate the burden which is imposed upon the agriculturists of this country in the increased cost in the removal of their products to market caused by the enhanced cost of railways, every mile of which pays some $3,000 duty upon its iron, or what is equivalent, if of American manufacture, the enhancement in price to the full margin of its protection; with which, enormous as it is, the iron-masters are not content, but having grown insolent with their accumula tions, have the impudence and audacity to ask that new lines of projected railway, seeking congressional action, shall not have the poor privilege of paying the duties and laying down foreign iron, but have been required as a condition upon which the favors of Congress have been awarded that they shall lay down none but iron of American manufacture?

Mr. Chairman, having referred to the condition of the country and the effect of tariff legislation, I desire to say in conclusion that the reforms which are demanded as the necessity of the hour are radical in their nature, and should be thorough and sweeping in their application if relief to an overburdened people is to be expected as a result. In the last fiscal year our receipts from customs revenues were $206,270,695, being an average of fortyfour per cent. upon all dutiable goods. The bill now under consideration proposes a reduction in gross of $18,952,438, which is not one third of what it should be. Sir, a reduction of at least $60,000,000 of the customs duties

should be at once effected, or upon such notice to the country as not to too suddenly disturb the business of the country.

Twenty-five per cent. duty, as an average, upon foreign importations would give a revenue, upon the basis of last year's imports, of $130,000,000; but with the known elasticity of the revenue, as evidenced in past years, together with the increased importations of articles now practically prohibited, we might with certainty expect the revenue from customs in the first year after such reduction to reach at least $150,000,000. This amount, with our revenues derived from internal taxes, even after the reduction proposed by the pend. ing bill, will give $280,000,000, a sufficiency for an economical administration of the Government and the payment of the interest upon the public debt.

Then, sir, having put your system of taxation upon a sound basis, thrust the pruning knife of reform into the civil list. Turn out the supernumeraries who infest every department of the civil service. Dismiss the incompetent from place, thrust from office with the brand of dishonor the dishonest mercenaries who cling to power "that thrift may follow fawning." Break up the plundering rings which infest your capital and pursue their nefarious schemes of peculation upon the Treasury. Give amnesty to the South in the removal of their disabilities, and peace to the country, and then reduce your standing Army for which you will no longer have need except upon the Indian frontier. These reforms effected and you will have from $25,000,000 to $40,000,000 to apply to the reduction of the national debt. Public confidence will be restored, the industries of the country will no longer be depressed; labor no longer plundered by your unjust and iniquitous tariffs, will receive a fair recompense in the just divisions of its joint earnings with capital. Your ship-yards will again resound with the clangor of the shipwright, and our national ensign will again float from the masts of our ships upon every sea.

Mr. DAWES. I move that the committee now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

The committee accordingly rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ScoFIELD reported that pursuant to the order of the House the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union had had under consideration the state of the Union generally, and more particularly the bill of the House (No. 2322) to reduce duties on imports and to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes, and had come to no resolution thereon.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

Mr. DU BOSE was granted leave of absence for ten days from Monday next.

Mr. YOUNG was granted leave of absence for three days.

Mr. BEATTY was granted leave of absence for one week.

for fifteen days from Monday next. Mr. GARRETT was granted leave of absence

Mr. DAWES. I move that the House do now adjourn.

The SPEAKER. Members will take notice that on and after Monday next the House will meet at eleven o'clock a. m.

The motion to adjourn was agreed to; and accordingly (at four o'clock and twenty-five minutes p. m.) the House adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a. m.

PETITIONS.

The following petitions were presented under the rule, and referred to the appropriate committees:

By Mr. ARTHUR: The petition of J. M. Curry, J. M. Watson, Minor Colvin, and 60 others, growers of and dealers in leaf tobacco in the county of Pendleton and State of Kentucky, protesting against any advance on the present tax on smoking tobacco, &c.

Also, the petition of T. J. Oldham, W. H. Roberts, A. I. McKinney, and 59 others, growers of and dealers in leaf tobacco in the county of Pendleton and State of Kentucky, protesting against any advance on the present tax on smoking tobacco, &c.

By Mr. MAYNARD: The petition of Mrs. Emma Husgrove, widow of E. R. Husgrove, of company F, eighth Tennessee cavalry praying Congress to remove her political disabili ties, by reason of which she is prevented from drawing a pension.

Also, the petition of William R. Duncan, of Tennessee, late of company G, third Teunessee volunteers, asking Congress for a pension.

By. Mr. E. H. ROBERTS: The petition of citizens of Utica, New York, for the increase of pensions to soldiers of the Union permanently disabled during the war by the loss of eyes or limbs.

IN SENATE.
MONDAY, April 29, 1872.

Prayer by Rev. JOSEPH M. TRIMBLE, D. D., of Columbus, Ohio.

The Secretary proceeded to read the Journal of the proceedings of Saturday last.

Mr. SPENCER. I move that the further reading of the Journal be dispensed with.

Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. I hope not. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from West Virginia objects, and the reading will be proceeded with.

The Secretary resumed and concluded the reading of the Journal.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. STEWART. I desire to ask the unanimous consent of the Senate, after the morning business is concluded, to call up Senate bill No. 522, the bill regulating the sale of coal lands.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Pending the call of petitions, the Senator from Nevada asks unanimous consent to take up the bill in regard to the sale of coal lands, subject to the morning business.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I object to that, not because I have any objection to the bill, but because I think we can get on best by following the regular course of business. The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection is made. Petitions and memorials are in order. PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.

Mr. SPENCER presented the petition of Wiley A. Hagler, of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, praying the removal of his political disabilities; which was referred to the select Committee on the Removal of Political Disabilities.

He also presented the petition of Claude H. Masten, praying payment for the use of a private hospital occupied by officers of the United States Army in 1865; which was referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN presented the memorial of George W. Anderson, asking for reimbursement of proceeds of the sale of certain mining stock sold under illegal decrees of the United States district court for the southern district of New York; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SCOTT presented a petition of citizens and merchants of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying the removal of the political and civil disabilities of Presley T. Glass, of Lauderdale, Tennessee; which was referred to the select Committee on the Removal of Political Disabilities.

Mr. ANTHONY. I present a memorial very numerously signed by officers of the Navy, headed by the Admiral, respectfully but earnestly remonstrating against the transfer or restoration of officers from the retired list to the active list without recommendation from the Department; and also against the practice of advancing officers by personal legislation over their seniors without recommenda

tion from the Department, and officers who have not come, in the opinion of the Executive, within the law which authorized them to be advanced certain numbers for gallant conduct. In presenting this memorial I desire to say that the sentiment of it meets my hearty concurrence. I believe that nothing is more prejudicial to the integrity, to the efficiency, to the discipline of the Navy, than personal legislation, giving to one man preference over his seniors without the recommendation of his superiors or of the Department. I move its reference to the Committee on Naval Affairs. The motion was agreed to.

Mr. SAWYER presented the memorial of Charles E. Carr, great grandson and heir and for the coheirs of Thomas Dennis, deceased, late of Newport, Rhode Island, praying indemnification for spoliations committed by the French prior to the year 1801; which was ordered to lie on the table.

He also presented a memorial of the Columbia Typographical Union of Washington, District of Columbia, remonstrating against the repeal of the eight-hour law; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WILSON presented three petitions of soldiers and sailors, in favor of the passage of the bill incorporating the National Union Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Industrial Training School Association; which were referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. CONKLING presented two petitions of citizens of Tompkins county, New York, praying the passage of a bill for the relief of William H. Akins and Jacob D. Felthousen, inventors of a sewing-machine; which were referred to the Committee on Patents.

Mr. SHERMAN presented the petition of John W. Wickham, jr., Job B. Beverstock, and Oscar B. Smith, praying the enactment of a law changing the spelling of the name of the schooner La Pette to that of La Petite; which was referred to the Committee on Com

merce.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. SUMNER. I ask the Senate to take up Senate bill No. 365, the District school bill, and then they can proceed with the morning business. I shall make no objection to that.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Pending the call for reports of committees, the Senator from Massachusetts asks that the District school bill be taken up.

Mr. CONKLING. To determine whether I

shall object or not, I ask the Senator whether, when one o'clock arrives, he will insist that that bill shall retain its place, or will allow it to fall then if not disposed of before that time? Mr. SUMNER. I shall expect it to fall, then, for the day.

Mr. CONKLING. Then I make no objection.

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts?

Mr. DAVIS, of West Virginia. Yes, sir. The VICE PRESIDENT. Objection is made. Reports of committees are next in order.

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. CRAGIN, from the Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the bill (S. No. 325) to aid in the execution of the law against polygamy, and to prevent that crime in the Territory of Utah, reported it with an amendment. The amendment was ordered to be printed, and the bill, as amended, recommitted to the Committee on Territories.

BILLS INTRODUCED.

Mr. SPENCER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1046) in relation to the United States courts in Alabama; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SPENCER. I am requested to introduce a bill, and I ask leave to do so without having fully examined its provisions, and I desire that it be read twice and referred to the District Committee.

By unanimous consent leave was granted to introduce a bill (S. No. 1047) in relation to the Orange, Alexandria, and Manassas railroad; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. Mr. SPENCER asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1048) for the relief of Dr. Claude H. Masten; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. NYE. I wish to call up for consideration House bill No. 1030, being a bill to regu. late the time of holding the elections in the Territories of Washington and Idaho.

Mr. EDMUNDS. I must ask the Senator to wait until we are through with the regular morning business.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The introduction of bills is still in order.

Mr. WRIGHT asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1049) to regulate the compensation of registers and receivers of consolidated land offices; which was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. FERRY, of Connecticut. I ask leave to introduce a bill at the request of a friend. I know nothing in regard to its merits.

By unanimous consent leave was granted to introduce a bill (S. No. 1050) to repeal a certain provision in the charter of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company of Washington, District of Columbia; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. WEST asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1051) for the relief of the heirs of Lee Hardesty; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. FERRY, of Michigan, asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to introduce a bill (S. No. 1052) referring the claim of J. H. Russell to the Court of Claims; which was read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Claims, and ordered to be printed.

EXTENSION OF PATENTS.

Mr. WRIGHT. On the 8th of this month I introduced a bill (S. No. 941) to authorize the extension of patents in certain cases, which was referred to the Committee on Patents.

They thereafter reported it back adversely, I believe, on the 11th of this month, when I was either absent from the Chamber or it escaped my observation, and it was indefinitely postponed. With the consent of the chairman I have the privilege of moving a reconsideration of the vote indefinitely postponing the bill and that it be placed on the Calendar.

The VICE PRESIDENT. It requires unanimous consent to reconsider at this time the vote indefinitely postponing the bill. If there be no objection, that order will be made. The Chair hears no objection. The vote is reconsidered and the bill will be placed on the Calendar.

DEBATE ON APPROPRIATION BILLS.

Mr. SCOTT. I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the resolution which I offered on Friday last, limiting debate on amendments to appropriation bills.

The VICE PRESIDENT. If there be no Senate resolutions, that motion is now in order. The resolution will first be read for information.

The resolution was read as follows:

Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order, pending an appropriation bill, to move to confine debate on the pending bill and amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion, and the motion to limit debate shall be decided without debate.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The motion is to

take up this resolution for consideration. It is not yet before the Senate for general debate. Mr. CASSERLY. I am not very much disposed to prolong unduly the debate on appropriation bills. This proposition, although not perhaps altogether without precedent, is too important a thing to be made a rule of the Senate without full consideration. I ask the Senator whether he desires to press it to a vote now; and if he does I ask him to state whether it is reported from any committee.

Mr. SCOTT. I do desire to press it to a vote now; but I will state to the Senator from California that since the resolution was offered I have concluded to so far amend it as to strike out the words "on the pending bill and ;" so that it will read:

That during the present session it shall be in order, pending an appropriation bill, to confine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes, &c.

The resolution is not reported from any committeee. I offered it to the Senate on Friday, and upon objection made by the Senator from Missouri [Mr. BLAIR] it went over. I think there can be no objection now at this stage of the session to confining debate on amendments to appropriation bills to five minutes.

Mr. POMEROY. I ask the Senator whether it is confining debate on

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Kansas will suspend. The Chair will state, as debate has opened on taking up this resolution, that he finds it somewhat difficult to decide to the satisfaction of the Senate exactly what is debate on the merits of a proposition. He will wait until some Senator makes a point of order on this debate on taking up various propositions for consideration. Then the Senate may decide the question as they prefer to do themselves.

Mr. POMEROY. I was only going to ask the Senator from Pennsylvania whether the proposition is that the debate shall be limited, or only that the remarks of any one Senator shall be limited to five minutes.

Mr. EDMUNDS. We cannot tell until we it get up.

Mr. CASSERLY. I suppose before anything is taken up every Senator has a right to know what it is; and after listening to the remarks of the Senator from Pennsylvania I must beg the Clerk to read the resolution now as amended by the Senator. It is not yet

The VICE PRESIDENT. amended.

Mr. CASSERLY. As it is proposed to be amended.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The resolution will be read as the Senator from Pennsylvania proposes to amend it if it should be taken up. The CHIEF CLERK. As proposed to be amended, the resolution will read :

Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order, pending an appropriation bill, to move to confine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion; and the motion to limit debate shall be decided without debate.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope that resolution will not be taken up. It would evidently lead to a protracted debate before it could be adopted; and a reason why I think it ought not to be taken up would be that I do not think we should waste the time of the session in the struggle that would undoubtedly take place over an attempt to limit debate in the Senate. It is not appropriate to go into reasons on this motion to take up, but it unquestionably would lead to some discussion before such a resolution could be adopted in the Senate.

Mr. SHERMAN. If my friend from Illi nois will allow me, this motion is precisely similar to that which has been adopted several times in the Senate since I have been a member of the body. At the close of a session it is the easiest way to expedite business, and it never has led to the slightest embarrassment. The bill itself is open to general debate, and