a year

beyond the termination of the existing contract, and to augment the subsidy for three and a quarter years at the rate of $500,000 a year, making nearly five million dollars of excess of taxation.

Mr. SHERMAN. The Senator understates the amount. The precise amount is five millions. He had better get exactly the precise amount of subsidy voted. This amendment is five millions.

Mr. HARLAN. I think it is just $4,875,000, according to the honorable Senator's figures. But take it at $5,000,000. Now, what are the exigencies demanding a tax on the people of the United States of $5,000,000? It is perfectly patent to the whole world that this company has prepared and is about to put on this additional service, about to put on additional ships. It has not been gainsaid that under their existing contract they will have to carry the mail semi-monthly if they put on the ship; I take this for granted. It is a general rule of the Department that when they make a contract for monthly service, or weekly service, or semi-weekly service, if the contractor puts on additional vehicles for carrying the mail the Post Office Department have a right to throw their mails on those vehicles for the extra service. Then it is a proposition to pay these men five million dollars for nothing. They have already advertised their ships for the semi-monthly voyages, naming the day of the departure of their ships; but lest this advertisement might defeat their application for additional subsidy they withdraw their advertisement, rescind their general order, and wait for these five millions. They can well afford to suspend putting on these ships for a month or two for five mil lions of extra bounty. This is being done without any statement of facts requiring it. There has been no statement here on the part of the chairman of the Post Office Committee saying that it is needed for that service.

Mr. RAMSEY. Certainly the Senator knows that the Post Office Committee have for three successive years reported in favor of this appropriation.

Mr. HARLAN. It is not needed. I hold in my hand the law that authorizes the Postmaster General to contract with any ship to carry the mail for the ocean postages, and no ship, I venture to say, has ever refused to carry the mail for the ocean postages. If these ships are put on they can be compelled to carry the mails for the cost of carrying the mails at the rate agreed upon between our countries and foreign countries.

There is therefore no necessity for this subsidy growing out of the Post Office service; there is none growing out of the war service. If these ships are put on they will not be war vessels; they will be unfit for war vessels except as transports. Everybody knows this. The honorable chairman of the Committee on Naval Affairs would not propose to build such ships as these for the American Navy. It requires a very different style of ship to stand its ground in a line of battle. They can be used for transportation and possibly may carry light guns; and if we should want them they can be taken by the Government just as ships heretofore have been taken and paid for. You gain nothing under that head. You gain nothing under the claim of promoting or advancing our commercial interests. This company have proposed to put on these additional ships, have advertised the time of leav ing port; but they conclude if Congress is blind enough to give them a douation of $5,000,000 to receive it. No one can blame them for taking the subsidy if Congress is blind enough to vote it. But what surprises me is that the chairman of the Committee on Finance, who is usually so careful in his watchfulness over the Treasury, should consider this proposition so perfectly innocent in its character.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WINDOM. I desire to offer another amendment, a verbal one. In line twenty, page 7, I move to strike out the words "upon payment" and to insert" and in such case pay.'

The question arose in the mind of some of the committee whether upon the words as they stand the Government could take these vessels without making prepayment. We do not desire that to be done, but by inserting the words and in such case pay," it will be clear that where the Government takes these vessels they may pay what they are reasonably worth, the pay to come after the vessels are used.

The amendment to the amendment was

agreed to.

to

Mr. WINDOM. I have one more amendment to propose, to strike out, commencing in line twenty one, all after the word "and the end of the clause. That is inserted already in the written amendment which has been

made, and as matter of form I move to have

it stricken out. The words are:

And the contractors shall agree to carry the United States mails, without further charge, upon the steamers they may run upon said line or any part of it, or any branch or extension thereof, beyond Yokohama in any direction.

The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I offer an amendment to come in immediately after the amendment of my colleague:

Provided, That the seamen employed by said line shall be citizens of the United States.

Mr. CASSERLY. I suggest to the Senator from New Jersey that the subject is perhaps a little larger than his amendment. For some reason satisfactory to Congress, as long ago as 1864 the then existing laws of Congress in regard both to officers and seamen of merchant ships were repealed or greatly changed. I have an amendment here the effect of which is to restore, so far as these steamers to which we may give subsidies are concerned, the laws as they existed before that change.

The amendment of the Senator from New Jersey points in the right direction. The only defect it has, if it has any, is that it does not cover the whole subject. I move an amendment here which I think will be satisfactory to that Senator and will cover the subject. I think with that Senator that we should be considering now whether we ought not to restore as soon as possible the old policy of the country in regard to the officers and seamen of our merchant ships. If we expect to preserve the race of our sailors we must do it. If the Senator from New Jersey will indulge me long enough to look for my amendment, I will find it in a few minutes. Meantime I ask to have the amendment read in regard to the China mail line as it now stands.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment. Mr. CASSERLY. I send up the amendment of which I just spoke.

The Chief Clerk read the proposed amendment, as follows:

That the act of June 28, 1864, entitled "An act repealing certain provisions of law concerning seamen on board the public or private vessels of the United States." is hereby repealed, and the acts and parts of acts repealed by said act are hereby revived and declared to be in full force: Provided, That in all cases the officers of public or private vessels of the United States shall be citizens of the United States, and that persons of foreign birth who have according to law declared their intention to become citizens of the United States may be employed as though they were citizens within the meaning of this act, or of the act or acts specified in said act of June 28, 1864.

Mr. POMEROY. That is a general law, and cannot be put on this bill.

Mr. WEST. I would ask the Senator from California whether that proposition intends to apply to the commercial marine of the United States generally, or only to these ships?

Mr. CASSERLY. It does intend to apply to the commercial marine of the United States generally, and I think it should.

Mr. WEST. I should hesitate very much to oppose the principle the Senator from California suggests, but it will strike the Senate at once that this is not in accordance with the rule we have adopted.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no ob jection to the proposition of the Senator from California, but I think it will involve the subject; and the simple amendment which I have introduced answers the purpose here, and at some other time these laws can be reviewed and corrected.

Mr. CASSERLY. I ask then to have the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey read. As I heard it read it struck me as being quite imperfect. Is the amendment in

Mr. POMEROY. order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. A point of order is raised by the Senator from Kansas. Unless the Senator from New Jersey accepts the modification by unanimous consent, the Chair cannot entertain the motion of the Senator from California.

Mr. SHERMAN. I suggest that the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey be so amended as to embrace those who have declared their intention to become citizens, who have always been treated in our commercial laws as citizens.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no objection to adding after the words "citizens of the United States," the words "or those who have declared their intention to become such."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amend. ment offered by the Senator from California is in the third degree, and clearly cannot be entertained unless the Senator from New Jersey accepts it.

Mr. CASSERLY. I so intended it, and never had any other idea. I wished the Senator from New Jersey to accept my amendment. It is in the same direction with his own. The only difference is that I think my amendment carries out more fully the intention.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no objection to accepting the amendment of the Senator from California, but any other Senator is at liberty to object to entering into that subject and introducing it on this appropriation bill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understood the Senator from Kansas to make a point of order under the new rule. If the Chair is called upon to rule on that he will do Does the Senator from Kansas persist in his point of order?

So.

Mr. POMEROY. Certainly. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The rule is

"No amendment to any such bill making legislative previsions, other than such as directly relate to the appropriations contained in the bill, shall be received.'

Mr. CASSERLY. Very good. Let me say that I understood that question to be practically decided the other way by the Senate yesterday. There was no vote taken, but I think there was a general concurrence in the idea that so long as the amendment offered did relate to an appropriation in the bill it was not objectionable. If the strict construction put upon that rule is correct, namely, that there shall be no amendment received unless it relates directly to the appropriation in the sense that it must be an amendment bearing directly on the appropriation, then there is no power in the Senate to amend an appropriation bill except by raising the appropriations or diminishing them. Is it so intended by that rule; or if that rule has any such intention will not the Senate change it?

Mr. POMEROY. The Senator states, I think, the case different from his own amendmont. His own amendment is a general law applying to every case, every vessel, every where.

Mr. CASSERLY. That is true.

Mr. POMEROY. And on that account it is obnoxious to the rule, but if it was limited to this particular service, to this particular line, it would be within the rule.

Mr. CASSERLY. I propose to add that, of course, if the Senator from New Jersey will

assent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from California so modifies his amendment, the Chair will rule in favor of the admis sion of the amendment at the proper time. But But in its present form it is clearly obnoxious to the rule, and would be excluded.

Mr. CASSERLY. I will state that it was drawn long before the rule was adopted or thought of.

Mr. POMEROY. As I understand the amendment pending to be the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, I desire to submit a single remark. I do not like any amendment nor anything put into a bill that discriminates against any class of citizens who may come to this country. I apprehend that the Japanese and Chinese are good laborers to be employed on these vessels. I think that if I were running vessels on the Pacific I would employ that class of labor. What strikes me offensively is that we are running these ships directly to China and Japan, and we are in viting the trade and commerce of these nations; we are trying to extend our civilization to them; they are adopting our customs, adopt ing our language to some extent, having it taught in their schools; and yet in regard to the very steamers that we send there we put in a clause that none of their people shall be employed on these vessels. Senators may say that if they have declared their intention to become naturalized they may perhaps be employed; but under the naturalization law I understand it is construed that they cannot be naturalized. I do not know whether that is so or not. I am told that the Chinese or Japanese cannot be naturalized under our naturalization laws.

That is so.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. POMEROY. If that is so, then we are inviting the trade and commerce and friendship of a people and extending to them as we say our civilization, and the very vessels that bear us there go under a law enacted by Congress that supports these vessels, saying to them, "None of your people shall be em ployed on them." It is bad taste; it is offensive to those people and wrong in itself. You make this company pay more for labor than they need to. The amendment ought not to be adopted.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. President, I confess that I am surprised at the argument of my friend that it is either in bad taste or wrong. Here this Government is paying a subsidy of about five millions for what? The leading, the controlling motive is to raise up seamen for our Navy. That is the governmental object that we have in the improve ment of our commerce.

Mr. POMEROY. Will not the Japanese and Chinese make good seamen? Negroes make good seamen.

Mr.FRELINGHUYSEN. Hear me through. That is the object. That was the object of this Government when it paid bounties to our fisheries. That was the reason always given. My friend from Kansas would not say that we in time of war were to employ seamen on ships of war who were not citizens of the United States.

Our

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think not. At all events, if it has been done, it is certainly the policy of this Government that our sailors should be citizens of the United States, and there is no discrimination against any class, because anybody can become a citizen. If there is any defect in our naturalization laws, let that defect be corrected, so that there shall be no discrimination as to class.

Mr. STEWART. I should like to ask a question, because it may arise hereafter in the construction of this clause. Would the word "seamen" here cover the other employés, for instance firemen ?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I understand

Mr. NYE. Just say that.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I have no objection to saying it.

46

Mr. NYE. Say that it applies to seamen alone."

Mr. CASSERLY. The amendment as I proposed it refers only to officers and seamen as technically classed; that is, sailors of the higher class. I am surprised at the sensitive

ness of Senators as to the effect of the amend. ment. I am particularly surprised at the sensitiveness of Senators from the Pacific coast. They have all seen what I have seen, and I saw it with great apprehension-Chinamen | employed as sailors before the mast on steamers of the Pacific mail line.

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. POMEROY] asks me if they were not good sailors. Of course they were not good sailors. They were not sailors at all. Nothing could be more ludicrous (except for the painful apprehensions the spectacle excited) than to see them attempt to take in sail in a blow. They had a sort of foreman who translated the orders to them, and they worked away in a confused, helpless crowd. It was almost enough to make one shudder to think of one of the company's great ships of four thousand tons, full of passengers, caught in one of the tremendous typhoons of the China sea, compelled in such a struggle between life and death to depend on a crew of Chinamen. The bare thought almost makes one's hair stand with fright at the thought of precious human lives exposed to such a risk.

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON] asks, how could one's hair stand upon end in such a case? I was speaking of my own thoughts as I stood upon the deck of a fine ship in the safe waters of the tropics on our Pacific coast, imagining what indeed would be the unhappy condition of any ship or of any ship's passengers in the hands of a crew of Chinamen exposed to the fury of a typhoon. Even as a part of the crew they are wholly unfit. While we are subsidizing these steamers, we should see that they are properly manned for their stormy and dangerous trade. Properly manned they never can be with Chinamen. All this is so well known on our coast that I confess my surprise to hear what we have heard from the Senator from Nevada.

The object of my amendment first offered was to restore the old system as to the officers and able-bodied seamen of merchant ships. To my surprise it met with opposition. As the amendment now stands it is confined to the officers alone. As to them it provides for a return of the old system liberalized. It is confined also to such ships as are employed in this service. I am sure I would not be illib eral toward a man of another land than this. I have no right to be, if such right any one

stand the Senator's amendment only to apply to officers?

Mr. CASSERLY. Only to officers. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do not accept that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey declines to accept it, and therefore it is not before the Senate

Mr. CASSERLY. I was about to say, and I may as well say it now, that as these aro United States mail ships there is a peculia propriety in having the officers either citizens of the United States, or at least persons who have made their declaration of intention

Mr. POMEROY. The law under which they are built requires that they shall be offcered by citizens of the United States. if the Senator from Ohio has the law, the Senator from California will see that the law is so. Mr. CASSERLY. I ask to have the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey read. The Chief Clerk read the amendment as follows:

Provided, That the seamen employed by said line shall be citizens of the United States, or those who have, according to the naturalization laws, declared their intention to become such.

Mr. STEWART. I am not sensitive or excited about this question.

Mr. SHERMAN. The word "officers" ought to be inserted before "seamen."

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I will modify it by saying "officers and seamen." The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques tion is on the amendment as modified.

Mr. SUMNER. Let that be reported again. The Chief Clerk read as follows: Provided, That the officers and seamen employed by said line shall be citizens of the United States, or those who have, according to the naturalization laws, declared their intention to become such.

Mr. SUMNER. I should like to understand the precise operation of that. What is its object?

Mr. STEWART. I suppose its object is to prevent Chinamen from being employed.

Mr. CASSERLY. As sailors; it does not interfere with those employed as waiters or helpers around the ship.

Mr. SUMNER. Is there any reason why they should not be employed as sailors if they make good sailors?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My reason [ will state to the Senator from Massachusetts. We are here giving a subsidy of some five million dollars to establish this line. I suppose that so far as the Government is concerned our object, our governmental object, is to raise seamen for our Navy in time of war. Thar has been the reason generally given for all bounties we have extended in aid of any kind of commerce, as the Senator from Massachusetts knows, he being familiar with the question of the fisheries. It seems to me that there is great propriety that these seamen for our Navy should be citizens of the United States; at all events that their interest should be identified with this country, either by being citi zens, or by having declared their intention to become such. It discriminates against no class; it only provides that inasmuch as we are paying this bounty, one object of which is to raise up seamen for our Navy in the event of war, they should be identified with us. I think it is a proper amendment. Mr. SUMNER. I suppose that incident to that is the exclusion of Chinese. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Chinese.

No, not the

Mr. SUMNER. I asked for information. I did not mean to assert it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It does not exclude them as Chinese. It excludes those who are not citizens and have not declare i their intention to become such.

Mr.SUMNER. Of course it would operate then upon all other foreigners, English, Irish, French, and Swedes.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SUMNER. Would not that limit very much the supply of seamen? The Senator is aware that on board our ships generally more than half of the seamen are foreign born. My friend from Nevada [Mr. NYE] says "foreigners yet;" not only foreign born but for eigners yet. I am inclined to think that that provision will be found a great embarrassment to the navigation of the ships. I do not see how they can find the men. They could not find them surely in San Francisco. They must pick them up and send them around there. I throw out that remark in order to open the way for the suggestion that this provision seems to have an embarrassment. I fear that it would interfere essentially with the navigation of these vessels.

Mr. SHERMAN. I will ask the Senator from Massachusetts if the word " seamen" under nautical law has such a definite meaning as to exclude a fireman, a servant, and a great mass of persons employed on these vessels?

Mr. SUMNER. I am not sure that it would. I would not say.

Mr. SHERMAN. That is very important. It is manifest that Japanese, Chinamen, and others must be employed as firemen and servants.

Mr. SUMNER. But I am now calling attention to the point that it would exclude that large class of foreigners who are now employed in our navigation, English, Irish, and particularly Swedes. The Senator is aware there are a great many Swedes on board our vessels, and Germans also.

Mr. SHERMAN. The argument of the Senator from New Jersey is, that under our navigation laws, formerly, we always required American citizens.

Mr.SUMNER. In point of fact they were not. Mr. SHERMAN. The question is whether the word "seamen" is not a word of such indefinite meaning as to include firemen of steam vessels.

Mr. SUMNER. It seems to me it would not embrace firemen. It seems to me the word seamen" is almost a perfectly technical term in the law.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts if he thinks, even if the fact is such as he states, that it would be to the interests of our Navy to have Chinese as seamen, not on account of any mental qualities, but on account of their physical power, their aptitudes? Is it not better to have our own citizens?

Mr. SUMNER. I should rather have every man in our Navy a citizen, one of our own people, who gave to the service therefore not only his arms but his heart; but what induced me to make the inquiry I did was an auxiety lest we at this moment should do an illiberal thing. That is the practical point with me. I feared that in these somewhat plausible terms there was an illiberality which I certainly do not wish to see in the legislation of our country. The explanation of the Senator meets it to a certain extent; and yet he will pardon me if I say even while listening to his explanation I feared that under that there was this illiberality, that perhaps one motive to this provision was a desire to bear upon the Chinese. I confess I doubt the expediency of any such thing.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As to motive, I am free to say that I do not think the Chinese would make good seamen for our Navy in time of war; and I think the success of our Navy depends almost entirely upon the character of its seamen. There is no hidden motive about it. I am free to say so.

Mr. SUMNER. 1 did not attribute that to the Senator at all.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey to the amendment.

The amendment to the amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. CASSERLY. I wish to renew the amendment just voted down striking out the words "and seamen.' The effect of that modification is to enlarge the present law. The present law requires the officers of these ships to be citizens. This permits any man who has given that pledge to the country which is involved in a declaration of his intention to become an officer also. I move simply the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey with the words "and seamen "' taken out.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on that amendment of the Senator from California.

The amendment was agreed to.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment of the committee as amended.

Mr. HAMILTON, of Maryland. That is the main question, and I ask for the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. SAULSBURY. On this question I am paired with the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. CARPENTER.] If he were here I would vote "nay," and he would vote "yea."

The question being taken by yeas and nays, resulted-yeas 29, nays 18; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Caldwell, Casserly, Clayton, Cole, Conkling, Corbett, Cragin, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, Flanagan, Hitchcock, Howe, Kellogg, Lewis, Logan, Nye, Osborn, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Sawyer. Scott, Sherman, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner, West, Wilson, and Windom-29.

NAYS-Messrs. Ames, Bayard, Chandler. Davis of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Frelinghuysen, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Maryland, Harlan, Johnston, Kelly, Morton, Norwood, Pratt, Spencer, Stevenson, Vickers, and Wright-18.

ABSENT-Messrs. Alcorn, Anthony, Blair, Boreman, Brownlow, Buckingham, Cameron, Carpenter, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Gilbert, Hamilton of Texas, Hamlin, Hill, Morrill of Maine, Morrill of Vermont, Patterson, Pool, Ransom, Robertson, Saulsbury, Schurz, Sprague, Thurman, Tipton, and Trumbull-27.

So the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WINDOM. I move that the Senate take a recess until half past seven o'clock. Mr. BUCKINGHAM. I move that the Senate adjourn.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut moves that the Senate do now adjourn, which motion takes precedence.

The motion was agreed to; and (at four o'clock and forty-five minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

FRIDAY, May 3, 1872.

The House met at eleven o'clock a. m., Mr. DAWES in the chair as Speaker pro tempore. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D.

The Journal of yesterday was read in part, when

Mr. WILLARD asked unanimous consent that the further reading of the Journal be dispensed with.

No objection was made; and it was ordered accordingly.

NAVAL APPROPRIATION BILL.

Mr. HALE. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments of the Senate to House bill No. 1191, making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending June 30, 1873, and for other purposes, be taken from the Speak

er's table and referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and that the bill and amendments be printed, the amendments to be numbered.

No objection was made; and it was ordered accordingly.

ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. E. H. ROBERTS. I move that the rules be now suspended, and that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on

the state of the Union for the consideration of the special order.

Mr. WILLARD. Allow me to make a suggestion. The House has had but one morning hour for private bills for a month, I think. This is private bill day, and it does seem to me that we ought to have a morning hour to day.

Mr. E. H. ROBERTS. General debate on the tariff bill is to close by order of the House at three o'clock to-day.

Mr. WILLARD. The time for general debate can be extended.

Mr. E. H. ROBERTS. It will be easy to obtain a special order by the House for an evening session for private bills, or for an hour some future day.

Mr. WILLARD. Will there be objection to having a morning hour to-day after three o'clock?

Mr. E. H. ROBERTS. I hope not.

Mr. WILLARD. If there is no objection to that I will not object to going into Committee of the Whole now.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The regular order after three o'clock will be morning-hour business, and the majority can control it then. The motion to go into Committee of the Whole was agreed to.

TARIFF.

The House accordingly resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, (Mr. SCOFIELD in the chair,) and resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 2322) to reduce duties on imports, and to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] is entitled to the floor.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, the subject of a tariff for protection and its oppressions is no new theme to me. Whether tariffs have been defended here as war measures or as peace measures; whether plausibly defended as necessary to develop our industries or incidentally to help them; whether for "revenue only," or for revenue and protection, in whatever guise, I have endeavored as a western and eastern Representative, to tear off the glossy lacquer with which such schemes are made plausible.

I have endeavored to do this by appealing to the spirit of the Constitution, which forbids any levy of tax, except for revenue-as well as the aggrandizement of one trade by "gratuities forced from others. In doing this I have often indulged in the weariness of detail. I have done this to show the pernicious effects of such devices upon the general and individual interest. This weariness, which is the companion and result of such labors, has only been relieved by the delight which comes from the study of the just proportions of truth and goodness. The supreme delectation which garlands even a lance of straw against a champion cased in the adamant of falsehood, selfishness, and cant has been my inspiration. It has, against all remonstrance of friends, and delights of home and library detained me in public life. No equivocal platforms, no party defections, no selfish arrogance, no specious demagogery has ever deterred the unfettered thought which I cherished as a scholar in the university and since as a public servant. long list of splendid minds, beginning with Solomon, when he established his reciprocal exchanges with Hiram, down to the new era which ushered in Adam Smith, Bastiat, and Stuart Mill; the grand contest in England in 1846, and in France later, when the reciprocities of trade were celebrated by two great nations, led by Cobden and Chevalier-and most, the splendid results to the material interests and the substantial glory of civilizationthe contemplation of all these, and more, have been a solace and a reward for my love of economic science and my devotion to its inductions and conclusions.

The

Yet through these long years, since I have been in this contest for fiscal and commercial liberty here, there has been but little practical satisfaction, except the exceeding great reward of "duty done." Protection continues to be our ruling policy. The great shame of our nation continues. I have been compelled to say like the Latin poet:

"Pudet hæc opprobria nobis;

Thank

Et dici potuisse et non potuisse repelli." The opprobrium shames us; and we can speak of it when we cannot repel it. God! I have lived to see the day when truthful men of the opposite party are coming to the front. They are helping us to realize the proverb, that in the revenues of the wicked there is trouble." The doom of protection is sealed. My friend from Illinois [Mr. BURCHARD] has made his confession, that long he groped in the dark, but investigation did for his honest and acute intellect what it did for David A. Wells and others. It has made him a champion worthy of any bandit's steel.

I trust that I may, without offense, refer to a method of argumentation which I have pur sued on this topic, not from any self-satisfaction, but to illustrate what I desire to say on this proposed legislation. My friends will not, I am sure, become so profane as did Donatus when he uttered the ejaculation:

'Damned be they who have said our good things before us."

METHOD OF ASCERTAINING BOUNTIES.

When the Morrill tariff bill of 1862 came to us, I adopted this method of detecting and exposing its fallacies and frauds: if a duty, say on leather, was thirty five per cent. ad valorem, we add that to the cost abroad of the article, including the premium or difference of exchange. Then, as the customs are paid in gold, we add the depreciation of the paper money the merchant pays with. Then, to the additional cost in consequence of exchange, duties, and paper money, we add the freight, insurance, and importer's profits. At this point of cost the imported article comes in competition with the corresponding article of the home manufacturer in the American market; and the aggregate of the items above mentioned constitutes the protection or bounty which the tariff system gives to the manufac turer. The consumers of the domestic article, of course, pay this bounty to the manufacturer. This is now reduced to an axiom in political economy. It is as clear as the proposition that the object of a tariff for protection is to increase the price of the article. If this were not the case who would care for protective bounties? Not the manufacturer, certainly. If not he, who then?

By this method, Mr. Chairman, and no other, did I demonstrate what in 1862 I denominated "bounties," a term now generally and properly adopted. I have sometimes used other and less decorous terms, but we should not always speak our thoughts here. It was by this method, based on facts like the original bills of lading and charges at the custom-houses, that I ascertained the enormous percentage in gold, even, which the product of the home manufac turer received at the point where the foreign article came in competition with the home product.

In these discussions I did not omit to point out the exact sums which were paid by the consumer as well as by the protected classes and sections which received them. No man born of woman ever dared to question the demonstration. Ignorance and selfishness sometimes contend yet that the bounty does not go to the home manufacturer. Oh, no; but these precious logicians, when it comes to removing the tariff on tea and coffee, sing hallelujahs to their legislation because it relieves the consumer of a tax measured by the amount of the duty. When it comes to a tax on copper or nickel. they do not see the same fundamental law of economy. Then their god, Baal, is "talking, or he pursueth, or he is on a jour

Afar from the calm retreats of economic science, these ghosts of protection go about squeaking and gibbering among laboring men of protection, when their false theories and distorted facts are condemned and scouted by the intelligence and progress of our age. They talk to the economists as if they were bookish men-doctrinaires. We are not practical men; we do not know affairs. They forget the primordial law of all experience and contemplation, that no true theory ever existed unless based not only on irrefragable fact, but heavenly justice.

The right to speak, write, travel, worship, and labor is not a whit more sacred than the right to exchange commodities unhampered by partial legislation. In fact, no argument is sound against such legislation that is not founded on the principles of liberty. Call the opponents of such schemes by what name you please-free-traders or what not-I accept any name. If for "free trade" I should suggest the words "unshackled exchange,' or "unhampered commerce,' men might wonder at the impassioned denunciation with which "free-traders" are met by their opponents. Standing on the rules of right and justice, denying to Government the function to help one section or class or individual at the expense and to the detriment of another; especially denying the privilege or right of the few to despoil the many, I have fearlessly analyzed the various bills which have been before Congress during my service here.

Bills to relieve the people, come they from minority or majority, come they from Missouri or Illinois, or even when reported by Massachusetts, I welcome them for as much as they are worth; and they are only worth so much as they near the goal of justice. Call them bantlings, or orphans, or foundlings. Let the bill of the majority be called fatherless and alone. I do not inquire who fathers the bill. If it is a waif, so much the more need for our care of the little but precious innocent. My only question is, is it humane? is it fair and good?

It may not be my privilege to see the full fruition of free trade; certainly not during or by this Congress; but the world progresses. Science is the handmaid of just legislation. Political economy is not a delusion or a sophism. Time will work for the right. You may cast your poison into the fountain, but the vein of truth will well up to purify and cleanse. I cheerfully look to the future; to a future when custom-houses, with all their proven corrup tions, will be abolished, and when men in America will wonder, as now the English people wonder, at the long struggle which Bright, Villiers, Cobden, Elliott, and Peel conducted, and which culminated in 1846 in a new order and a splendid prosperity for the British people.

Much has been said about the relative virtues of a more direct system of taxation, like the internal revenue, and the mischief of the fraudulent protective system. I infinitely prefer the former. Besides, was it not understood, when these exorbitant tariffs began during the war, that their reduction or repeal was to be a consequence or a concurrence with the reduction or repeal of the internal tax? Let facts tell.

BAD FAITH OF PROTECTION.

On the 30th of June, 1864, an internal revenue tax was imposed on manufacturers of five per cent. upon gross products. It was increased in March, 1865, to six per cent. This was made the pretext for the advanced tariffs of July 14, 1862, and June 30, 1864. Pennsylvania, by her great leader, Thaddeus Stevens, stated that these tariffs were increased by reason of this internal tax.

The leader of the Ways and Means, [Mr. MORRILL,] declared this legislation to be temporary. It was a war measure only. When peace came, then the stern duties of economy

How

should be reduced or repealed. These blessed economies were to go pari passu! The internal taxes of the year 1864 on manufactures for that year were reported to be $128.000,000. Of that the iron interest paid $12,000,000. they groaned under it! But most of these were stricken off. Again, in the last Congress there was an additional reduction of the internal revenue, and now it is proposed to reduce it still more and more without a fair reduction of the tariff. Why do not the protectionists keep faith? Why not march hand in hand with the reduction of the internal tax? Why, but for the same reason that induces the minority of the Ways and Means to remove all straightforward and honest revenue taxes, in order that they may help the greedy and few to their insidious and unjust gains?

I refer for a detailed statement on this topic, illustrative of that bad faith which follows bad legislation, to the statement of Mr. Allison, of Iowa, in the Forty-First Congress. Referring to this point, he said:

"These taxes, by successive acts of repeal, have all been removed. First came the revenue act of July 13, 1866, when the internal tax was removed from most manufactures of iron and steel, and reduced upon manufactures of woolens, and the free list enlarged. In March, 1867, a further reduction of taxes was made, and by the act of March, 1868, all taxes upon manufactures were abolished, save only the tax of two dollars per $1,000 on sales; thus practically relieving the domestic industry of the country of a burden which in 1865 was $73,000,000 in round numbers: in 1866, $128.000.000; in 1867, $92,000.000, and in 1868, $62,000,000."-Globe, Appendix, volume 81, page 193.

As no reduction was then made in the tariff, the abolition of these internal taxes sucessively had the effect of increasing, by so much, the tariff on similar articles. This was a fraud.

Since then we know that some millions have been taken off of the internal tax by the Schenck bill. It is now proposed to take off some twenty million dollars more. And this is considered fair to the consumers, fair to the many. I denounce it as a flagrant breach of honor. If the original tariff bill of Morrill, made in 1861, had been reduced one third it would hardly have represented what should have been done in good faith.

INDIRECT TAXATION BY TARIFF.

If the question of good faith bad reference only to the equal repeal of tariff and internal tax the iniquity would not be so monstrous. But the tariff, by its insidious devices, not merely makes revenue but it robs by felonious indirection. My friend from Indiana [Mr. KERR] reckoned that upon the present tariff there were more than five hundred millions of "bounties" paid to the pet manufacturers which never saw the Treasury. This is a very moderate computation.

I have already shown in a speech here on 28th March, 1870, that on eight articles alone under the tariff, before it was meagerly amended by the Schenck bill of last session, that to get $41.211,440 into the Treasury the people paid $852,817,740 to some favorites outside of the Treasury, whose locus in quo was not among commercial, working, or agricultural people. That was shown by computations drawn from bills of lading, and by the inexorable rules of economic logic. To get revenue on pig, bar, and railroad iron in one year, amounting to $5,481,132, or fourteen cents and seven mills per head on imported iron, the tariff enables the iron manufacturers to collect as tribute the enormous sum of $148,750,000, or $3 71% per head; on cotton fabrics to get $24,278,504 in the Treasury we pay $190,320,000; to obtain revenue on ready-made clothing, cotton and woolen, amounting to only $1,343,975, the people pay over $190,000,000; on salt, to get $1,058,609, they pay nearly $5,000,000; on leather, to obtain revenue, hardly $2,000,000, they pay $175,380,000; on bituminous coal, to get about $500,000, nearly $70,000,000 of taxation; and so on through the dishonorable chapter.