Mr. EDMUNDS. Whichever way gentlemen please; I say three o'clock; is there any objection? ["No."] Then it is that at three o'clock general debate shall terminate and the vote shall be taken on any pending_amendments according to their order, of course under parliamentary provision, and that if any other amendments are offered, the gentlemen offering them or anybody else may have five minutes to support or oppose any amendment which may be proposed, and that any questions arising in connection with the progress of the bill and amendments shall be subject to the same understanding of five minutes, and that we terminate the bill.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate has heard the proposition stated in full, and it is recorded. It is understood that it is to be obeyed by Senators themselves, and of course not to be enforced by the Chair.

Mr. WILSON. I move that the Senate do now adjourn.

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

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
WEDNESDAY, May 8, 1872.

The House met at eleven o'clock a. m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. J. G. BUTLER, D. D.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

WEST WISCONSIN RAILWAY.

Mr. RUSK. I ask unanimous consent to have taken from the Speaker's table and considered at this time Senate bill No. 671, to authorize the West Wisconsin Railway Company to keep up and maintain a bridge for railway purposes across Lake St. Croix, at the city of Hudson, in the State of Wisconsin.

The SPEAKER. The bill will be read, after which objections to its present consideration will be in order.

The bill was read at length.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Has this bill been considered by any committee?

Mr. RUSK. It has been considered informally by the Committee on Commerce, who have no objection to it.

No objection being made, the bill was taken from the Speaker's table, read three times, and passed.

Mr. RUSK moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

CREEK ORPHANS OF 1832.

On motion of Mr. SARGENT, by unanimous consent, the Committee on Appropriations was discharged from the further consideration of a communication from the acting Secretary of the Interior relative to an appropriation required to restore to the Creek orphans of 1832 certain funds to which they are entitled under the treaty of March 24, 1832; and the same was referred to the Committee of Claims.

UNITED STATES COURT AT SYRACUSE.

Mr. DUELL, by unanimous consent, introduced a bill (H. R. No. 2693) to provide for an additional term of the district and circuit courts of the United States; which was read a first and second time.

Mr. DUELL. I ask unanimous consent that this bill be considered and passed at the present time. It has received the favorable action of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The bill was read. It provides that in addition to the terms of the district and circuit courts of the United States for the northern district of New York, a term of said court shall hereafter be held annually at the city of Syracuse, at such time as the judge of the district court shall appoint. But the additional

term is not to be held until the corporate authorities of Syracuse shall agree, by order in due form entered upon their records, that such corporate authorities will supply, without any charge whatever against the United States, a suitable court-room in which to hold such additional term; and the court is not to be held if such room be not provided.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. It seems to me this bill ought to go to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DUELL. I will say to my colleague that it has received favorable action from that committee. The bill contemplates no expense to the United States. The corporate authorities of Syracuse are to furnish the court accommodations.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Are the people of Syracuse and the surrounding country informed of this measure and in favor of it? Mr. DUELL. They are.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Is there no objection to it among the New York delega

tion?

Mr. DUELL. No, sir.

There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. DUELL moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTAL APPORTIONMENT BILL.

Mr. MERCUR. I rise to a privileged question and call up the motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill (H. R. No. 1343) supplemental to an act entitled "An act for the apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the several States according to the ninth census" was recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The bill was read. It provides that from and after the 3d day of March, 1878, the following States shall be entitled to one Representative each in the Congress of the United States, in addition to the number apportioned to such States by the act entitled "An act for the apportionment of Representatives to Cengress among the several States according to the ninth census," approved February 2, 1872, to wit: New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. In the election of Representatives to the Forty-Third Congress in any State which by this law is given an increased number of Representatives, the additional Representative or Representatives allowed to such State may be elected by the State at large, unless the Legislature of said State shall otherwise provide before the time fixed by law for the election of Representatives therein.

Mr. MERCUR. I desire to offer the following amendments:

After the word "Florida," in line twelve, insert the words" and be elected by separate districts as in said act directed."

After the word Congress," in line thirteen, insert "only."

In line fifteen, strike out "or Representatives." Mr. BURCHARD. Mr. Speaker, is this a privileged report?

tion.

The SPEAKER. It is a privileged ques The bill was some days ago printed and recommitted, a motion to reconsider was entered, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MERCUR] now calls up the motion to reconsider.

Mr. MERCUR. If members will give me their attention for five minutes I will endeavor to explain the bill, so that all may understand it. The ratio of representation adopted by the bill is 131,425, which, by allowing an additional Representative to each State that has a fraction greater than a moiety, would make this House consist of two hundred and ninety members. This supplemental bill, however,

adds two to that number, making the aggre gate two hundred and ninety-two. As is known to the House, the bill passed during the pres ent session, and which has become a law, makes the aggregate of members two hundred and eighty-three, to which this bill adds nine, giving a member to each of the following States: New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida. The only two States whose representation the existing law proposes to decrease are Vermont and New Hampshire. This bill, if it becomes a law, will allow to these States their present representation, three members each.

There has been a slight departure from the general rule I have enunciated, in order to avoid leaving States with too large a fraction unrepresented.

The general rule I state to be to give to each State a member that had a fraction greater than one half the ratio of representation. This supplement, however, gives a member to each one of two States that have a fraction less than that, but each of which has a fraction so large that it was deemed more just they should have a member than they should be deprived of a member. Those two States are New Hampshire and Florida, and under this supplementary bill Florida gets a member for a fraction of 56,323, New Hampshire gets a member for a fraction of 55,450. Thus it will be observed that each of those States which gets a member has a very large fraction over fifty thousand representative population.

The whole representative population of the United States under the recent census was 38,203,210. The total number of Indians not taxed within the States-those sustaining tribal relations-was 89,957. Deducting that from the total population of the States it leaves a representative population of 38,113,253, and it is by dividing that by the ratio taken here, 131,425, the result is arrived at as I have stated to the House.

It is found by the bill prepared at the Census Bureau, submitted to the House when the question of apportionment was before it dur ing the winter, as well as by the report of the Committee on the Judiciary which accompanies this bill, that this supplementary bili, which gives to these States this additional member, makes, perhaps, a fairer representation than any which can be adopted, in that it allows larger fractions to be represented, and that it deprives of representation a lesser nu mber of fractions in the aggregate than any other which can be fixed on as the proper number of Representatives. This bill, I believe, was unanimously recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary.

I desire to read again the number of States each of which gets an additional Representative: New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida; and if no gentleman desires to speak on this question, or to ask a question, I will call the previous question.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. I should like to know what the fractions are for which these States are allowed each an additional member.

Mr. MERCUR. Florida, 56,323; Indiana, 103,537; Louisiana, 69,710; New Hampshire, 55 450; Pennsylvania, 104,741; Vermont, 67,701 Tennessee, 75,695; Alabama, 77,017. New Hampshire is the smallest of all, and Florida is next.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. I wish to sug gest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that here are at least three of these States having considerably less than a moiety.

Mr. MERCUR. Two, only-New Hamp shire and Florida.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. Let me look at this a moment. Suppose we put these nine in, and then take the total population of the United States and divide it by the new total of the House, and it changes the ratio of representation, and we are then left with other States

having fractions which, if these nine be admitted, ought equitably to be entitled to additional members. It seems to me it breaks down through all system by which representative arrangement has heretofore been reached. These nine States, these great States it is quite likely may make a majority here for the purpose of carrying through this bill. In reference to two or three of these States, Indiana and Pennsylvania, which have each a fraction over a hundred thousand, it seems to me certainly great equity to allow them each an additional member, but in reference to these other States which have fractions far below a moiety there is no equity whatever in allowing them an additional member.

Mr. FARNSWORTH. I think in every case where a State had a fraction over a moiety it was given a member for that moiety. Certainly that is my recollection. I had charge of the bill, and I believe in every instance where there was a fraction over a moiety an additional member was allowed.

Mr. RANDALL. Would it be in order to make motion to lay this bill on the table? I object to this tinkering with the apportion

ment.

Mr. MERCUR. I yield for a moment to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox.]

Mr. COX. I see that by this bill an additional member is given to the State of Pennsylvania and to each of several other States. How is that member to be elected?

Mr. MERCUR. I will answer the gentleman's questiou. The bill we have already passed, which has become law, provided that members should be elected by separate districts and contiguous territory; and this bill provides in general terms that the additional members shall be elected in the same way. But it provides that the members to be elected for the Forty-Third Congress may be elected by the State at large, if the State shall not be previously redistricted.

Mr. COX. That is, the additional members.

Mr. MERCUR. Yes, sir; at the first election if the State shall not have made a new apportionment, but not afterward. I withdraw the motion to reconsider, and move the previous question.

Mr. RANDALL. I move to lay the bill on the table.

The House divided; and there were-ayes 78, noes 68.

Mr. MERCUR. I call for the yeas and

nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative-yeas 80, nays 104, not voting 56; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Acker, Adams, Archer, Averill, Beatty, Beck, Beveridge, Biggs, Bird, James G. Blair, Braxton, James Brooks, Burchard, Freeman Clarke, Coghlan, Comingo, Conger, Conner, Cotton, Crebs, Critcher, Donnan, Duke, Dunnell, Farnsworth, Farwell, Finkelnburg, Charles Foster, Henry D. Foster, Wilder D. Foster, Getz, Griffith, Haldeman, Hambleton, Hanks, Harper, George E. Harris, Havens, Hawley, Hay, Gerry W. Hazelton, Herndon, Houghton, Kerr, Marshall, McClelland, McCormick, McGrew, McHenry, McIntyre, McKinney, Benjamin F. Meyers, Morgan, Morphis, Orr, Palmer, Isaac C. Parker, Perce, Price, Randall, Read, EdWard Y. Rice, Ritchie. Robinson, Sherwood, Slater, Slocum, John A. Smith, Stevens, Storm, Stoughton, Sutherland, Swann, Terry, Waddell, Walden, Waldron, Wells, Winchester, and Young-80.

NAYS-Messrs. Ambler, Ames, Arthur, Banks, Barber, Barnum, Bell, Bigby, Bingham, Austin Blair, George M. Brooks, Buckley, Buffinton, Benjamin F. Butler, Caldwell, Coburn, Cox, Crossland, Dawes, Dox, Duell, Eames, Elliott. Ely, Frye, Golladay, Hale, Halsey, Handley, Harmer, John T. Harris, Hays, Hibbard, Hill, Hoar, Kelley, Kellogg, Kendall, Ketcham, Killinger, Lamport, Leach, Lowe, McJunkin. Mercur, Merriam, Monroe, Morey, Leonard Myers, Negley, Packard, Packer, Hosea W. Parker, Peck. Pendleton, Eli Perry, Peters, Platt, Poland, Porter, Potter, Rainey, Ellis H. Roberts, Rogers, Roosevelt, Rusk, Sargent, Sawyer, Scofield, Seeley, Sessions, Sheldon, Shoemaker, H. Boardman Smith, Worthington C. Smith, Snapp, Snyder, Thomas J. Speer, Sprague, Starkweather, Strong, St. John Sypher, Taffe, Dwight Townsend, Washington Townsend, Turner, Tuthill, Tyner, Upson, Vaughan, Voorhees, Wakeman, Wallace, Warren, Wheeler, Whiteley, Whit

thorne, Willard, Williams of Indiana, Williams of New York, Jeremiah M. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Wood-104.

NOT VOTING-Messrs. Barry, Boles, Bright, Burdett, Roderick R. Butler, Campbell, Carroll, William T. Clark, Cobb, Creely, Crocker, Darrall, Davis, De Large, Dickey, DuBose, Eldredge, Forker, Garfield, Garrett, Goodrich, Hancock, John W. Hazelton, Hereford, Holman, Hooper, King, Kinsella, Lamison. Lansing, Lewis, Lynch, Manson, Maynard, McCrary, McKee, McNeely, Merrick, Mitchell, Moore, Niblack, Aaron F. Perry, Prindle, John M. Rice, William R. Roberts, Shanks, Shelia barger, Shober, Sloss, R. Milton Speer, Stevenson, Stówell, Thomas, Twichell, Van Trump, and Walls-56. So the motion to lay the bill on the table was not agreed to.

The question recurred on seconding the demand for the previous question.

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; which was first on agreeing to the amendments reported from the Committee on the Judiciary.

The amendments were agreed to.

Mr. RANDALL. I ask that the bill as now amended be read.

The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the 3d day of March, 1873, the following States shall be entitled to one Representative each in the Congress of the United States in addition to the number apportioned to such States by the act entitled "An act for the apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the several States according to the ninth census,' approved February 2, 1872, to wit, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Tennessee. Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, and be elected by separate districts as in said act directed: Provided, That in the election of Representatives to the Forty-Third Congress only, in any State which by this law is given an increased number of Representatives, the additional Representative allowed to such State may be elected by the State at large, unless the Legislature of said State shall otherwise provide before the time fixed by law for the election of Representatives therein.

Mr. RANDALL. I would suggest another amendment in order to make the meaning of the bill more clear. At the end of the bill let the words again be inserted "for the FortyThird Congress.'

Mr. MERCUR. Those words are already in the bill. I do not think a second insertion is necessary.

The bill, as amended, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and being engrossed, it was accordingly read the third time, and passed.

Mr. MERCUR moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

The latter motion was agreed to.

BUSINESS OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Mr. BINGHAM. On behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary I ask that by unanimous consent Tuesday evening and Wednesday evening of next week be assigned for the consideration of reports from that committee. Mr. BROOKS, of New York. At night? The SPEAKER. At night.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. This is one of the most important committees of the House.

Mr. BINGHAM. I hope the gentleman will not object.

Mr. RANDALL. I would rather give the committee a day's session for their work. Mr. BINGHAM. I will agree to that. Mr. RANDALL. Our experience for the past few night sessions has shown us that we cannot get a quorum here at night.

The SPEAKER. There being objection the request cannot be entertained.

Mr. BINGHAM. I will change my request, and ask that Wednesday and Thursday of next week, after the morning hour, be assigned for business from the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DAWES. Iobject to that proposition. I now move that the rules be suspended and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole upon the special order. The motion 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 pending question is upon the motion to strike out line nine of the bill, which reads "on teas of all kinds, ten cents per pound."

Mr. DAWES. I would like to call attention to a mistake in the printed bill. On page 3, at line twenty-six of the printed bill, should begin "section three."

The CHAIRMAN. That error will be corrected.

Mr. DAWES. I desire, on the motion to strike out tea and coffee, to make a statement to the House of the present condition of this bill.

If this bill shall become a law it will have this effect upon the revenue

Mr. SARGENT. Permit me to inquire if the right has been reserved to fix the date at which this bill shall go into effect?

Mr. DAWES. I will ask unanimous consent to reserve the right to change the date from the 1st day of January to some other day, at the close of the consideration of this bill.

No objection was made.

Mr. DAWES. The bill in its present state makes the following reductions of the duties and internal taxes

Mr. FARNSWORTH. Is this debate under the five-minutes rule or the hour rule?

The CHAIRMAN. It is under the fiveminutes rule.

Mr. DAWES. The total reduction of duties and internal taxes effected by this bill will be $40,128,837 16. The items of reduction are as follows:

Mr. BUTLER, of Massachusetts. Does that including the ten per cent. reduction ordered on yesterday?

Mr. DAWES. It includes the ten per cent. reduction and also the placing tea and coffee on the free list.

Mr. MAYNARD. Will the gentleman in that connection tell us upon what basis he makes the calculation of the reduction upon tea and coffee?

Mr. DAWES. Upon the number of pounds introduced into this country last year. Mr. MAYNARD. The last fiscal year? Mr. DAWES. The last fiscal year. Mr. MAYNARD. The last calendar year would show considerably more than that. Mr. DAWES. Very likely.

Mr. MAYNARD. During the last calendar year the duty on tea and coffee was about eighteen million dollars.

Mr. DAWES. I desire, if I may be sup. ported by the majority, when we reach the portion of this bill relating to internal revenue, to further reduce it about ten million dollars upon stamps and those small provisions of law exacting taxes without any sufficient remuneration to justify the annoyances to trade. That would bring the total reduc. tion up to about fifty million dollars, the point to which the committee and the members of

the House, so far as I understand the sentiment of the House, generally desire to bring || the reduction. I have nothing further to say upon that subject.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. What is the question pending?

The CHAIRMAN. It is to strike out the ninth line, relating to tea.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am obliged to go for that proposition because the House and the Senate have already agreed to it, and it has become a law. But I hope that measure will be followed up by the like abolition or reduction of other parts of the tariff. When under the cry of a free breakfast table" the duty on tea and coffee was abolished, those who carried that measure seized hold of the key of the position of those who wished to liberate the country throughout the whole tariff; and they who held that key have had control of this bill. I propose now to show that in order to carry out the idea of a "free breakfast table" we must go a great deal further than merely admitting tea and coffee free of duty.

66

I have in my hand a list of articles necessary to constitute a free breakfast table." In the first place you must have a table; that table is generally of wood, sometimes partly of iron. It may be of marble, and then it will be a very dear table. On the wood of which the table is made the duty is thirty per cent. ad valorem. Tables generally have a little varnish on them, and the duty on varnish is fifty-seven per cent. ad valorem. There are screws in the table; it is not held together entirely by iron; and the screws, especially the wood-screws of Rhode Island, are "protected" by a duty of from forty to one hundred and fifty per cent. ad valorem. There is very often brass in a table, the duty on brass is forty-five per cent. ad valorem. Then you must have a table cloth which, if it be of linen, pays a duty of forty per cent. ad valorem. Those who indulge in napkins for their table, must pay on them a duty of forty per cent. ad valorem.

Mr. KELLOGG. The gentleman will allow me to correct him. On brass the duty is thirtyfive per cent.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. I do not so understand. Now, it is of no use to have a table and table-cloth unless you have dishes, and the people of this country pay a much higher duty upon their crockery-ware for table use than they do upon their tea and coffee. The duty on crockery-plates, tea-cups, saucers, milk-pots, &c.-is from forty to sixty per cent. ad valorem. On glass-ware, in which some indulge, the duty is forty-five per cent. ad valorem, or if it be cut glass fifty per cent. ad valorem. On casters and caster-stands the duty is thirty per cent. ad valorem, or if plated forty per cent. There is no use in having a table without spoons and knives; and spoons pay the enormous duty of forty-five per cent. ad valorem. On knives and forks the duty is thirty-five per cent. ad valorem. Now, look at the tea-pot, from which we are to drink our tea. What duty does the tea-pot pay? If of metal, forty-five per cent. ad valorem; if of crockery, only forty per cent. ad valorem.

Thus far we have the outfit for a "free 'breakfast table," but nothing upon it to eat. A "free breakfast table" without something to eat would be of very little benefit to anybody. Now, let us look at the cost of provisions to supply this "free breakfast table." If your bread has any lightening in it, or is made by the use of any preparation for raising bread, whether it be corn bread or flour bread, the tartaric acid used in making these "breadpowders," as they are called, pays for the benefit of some of our manufacturers a duty of sixty-seven per cent. ad valorem. Then comes sugar; scarcely anybody uses tea or coffee without using sugar.

Mr. MAYNARD. I wish the gentleman would put the duty on tartaric acid into specific dollars and cents, so that we may know

precisely how much that item costs us every day.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Mr. Chairman, the duty on sugar is ten times as enormous as has been the duty on tea and coffee; yet no proposition for the reduction or abolition of this duty on sugar has come from those gentlemen who are so earnestly in favor of a "free breakfast table." Tea and coffee are not necessary elements of life; but sugar is almost an essential element of life. It enters into a great variety of articles of consumption. I see, fall.

Mr. Chairman, your gavel is about to 66 Strike, but hear" hereafter. [Here the hammer fell.]

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to amend by striking out the clause imposing a duty of ten cents per pound on

tea.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. I move to amend so as to make the duty on tea nine cents a pound. Mr. Chairman, in order to constitute a "free breakfast table" it is

necessary to have free sugar. But the duty on sugar is one and three fourths to four cents per pound; an enormous duty solely for the protection of the interests of one State, Louisiana. This is one of the very highest duties levied on any import. And yet the friends of the "free breakfast table propose to leave the duty on sugar where it is. Even my col league from the city of New York, who is in favor of free tea and coffee, has not lifted his voice yet in favor of free sugar.

What is the duty on provisions coming from Canada, coming across the line? On beef, on pork, on chickens, on a stray turkey, even from St. John coming over into Maine, or coming from Canada into any of the border States, the duty on those articles is one cent per pound. On butter it is seventeen and three fourths per cent., on cheese twenty-six per cent., on vinegar fifty-two per cent., on pepper one hundred and thirteen per cent., on olive oil, which is a most unnecessary duty, and which is somewhat used at the breakfast table, there is a duty of fifty per cent. On mustard the duty is forty-six per cent; and on salt, which everybody uses, whether on a "free breakfast table" or not, it now stands between one hundred and sixty and three hundred per cent., which it is proposed now to be allowed to remain.

Mr. AMBLER. I rise to a point of order. Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Let me run on. Mr. AMBLER. I object that it is not in order to discuss the general principles of this paragraph under the pretense of an amendment.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. You will not gain any time by this process.

The CHAIRMAN. If the point of order is insisted on, the gentleman from New York will be obliged to confine his remarks to his amendment.

Mr. AMBLER. I insist on my point of order.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. I propose to insert these other articles upon the free list, so that we may really have a free breakfast table.

Mr. AMBLER. I insist on the point of order.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. I give notice that gentlemen must confine themselves in their remarks especially to the pending amendment until I am allowed to go on.

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the House has abolished all duty on tea and coffee, that the two Houses, together with the Executive, have abolished the duty on tea and coffee, and this amendment I understand to be on the part of the gentleman from New York to restore those duties.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. No; to reduce them to a lower rate.

Mr. KELLEY. The gentleman's motion is to put a duty on tea of nine cents per pound.

Tea free! Tea the Democratic party, whenever it had power, made free, tea-which goes into the consumption of every farmer's and laborer's family-and yet the gentleman comes here and talks about the duty on marble tables and silver and cut glass and plated ware that garnish them. The farmers and laborers do not enjoy those luxuries, and do not pay the duties on them. Sir, by their well-paid labor they are able to enjoy comfortable meals and healthful subsistence for their families. If the gentleman from New York were to have his way there would be millions here as to tea and coffee as the Irishman was who boasted that things that cost a dollar here might be bought in his native country for sixpence." Then why did you not stay there?" asked an inquisitive bystander. "Because a man could never get the sixpence." [Laughter.]

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. Is it in order to tell stories? [Laughter.]

Mr. KELLEY. The difficulty was that the man could not get the sixpence.

Mr. BROOKS, of New York. I make the point of order that the gentleman is telling stories.

Mr. KELLEY. It is better to tell a good story than a downright fib. [Laughter.] Mr. BROOKS, of New York. It is not in order to tell a downright fib.

Mr. KELLEY. I thought it was from what I heard this morning.

Mr. GARFIELD, of Ohio. How about tobacco ?

Mr. KELLEY. If the gentleman from New York could have his way, the workshops of the country would be closed, or wages would be reduced to such a point as would not enable us to exclude the productions of Belgium, of Austria, of Germany, of France, or of England, where laborers are paid only about one half or one third of the wages received by American laborers. There would be no breakfast tables, as I have said, for millions of the men who to-day are prosperous American cit izens.

The millions who have come to us in the last decade, and are coming at the rate of nearly four hundred thousand this year, would not be coming, would not have come here, would not be American citizens, either in fact or in embryo, but would be starvelings and paupers, dying on the streets of the richest city of the world, London. They would be with their children carrying from six to ten tons of clay per day and walking twenty miles to earn from sixpence to tenpence a day in the pot teries of England, from which the gentleman would have us draw the furniture for our free-breakfast table.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. BECK. I move to amend the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. BROOKS] by making the rate five cents, instead of nine. I desire to say, in answer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KELLEY,] that he is mistaken about the Democratic policy in regard to free tea. From 1792 to 1842, under all the Democratic administrations, a tax was kept upon tea. In 1792 a duty of ten, eighteen, and thirty-two cents per pound was imposed.

Mr. KELLEY. Does the gentleman claim Washington as a Democrat?

Mr. BECK. I believe he was not a Radical. But was not Jackson a Democrat? It was taxed during his whole term. As I have said, by the tariff of 1792 the tax was ten, eighteen, and thirty-two cents per pound. During the war of 1812 it was twenty-four, thirty-six and sixty-four cents. Under the tariff of 1824 it was twelve, twenty-five, and fifty cents. In the tariff of 1832, and under Jackson's whole administration, it was ten cents a pound. So it remained until the high Whig tariff of 1842 was passed, when they wanted just what is wanted now, protection on the same articles as those on which the gentleman from Penn | sylvania [Mr. KELLEY] wants protection.

Mr. WOOD. Will the gentleman state what was the duty on tea when imported in American bottoms?

Mr. BECK. The tariff was sometimes in one and sometimes in another form. I am not going to argue that point, but I will say that that was a part also of the system of monopoly. And I desire to say to the gentleman from New York that I am sorry he has gone into this league to destroy whatever brings revenue that will interfere with the high protection pig iron is seeking to secure.

Mr. McNEELY. Will the gentleman yield to me for a moment?

Mr. BECK. The gentleman will have plenty of time afterward. I cannot yield.

I chiefly rose, however, for the purpose of laying before the House a table which members ought to see, since the bill of the committee has been killed by striking out the enacting clause. It shows what the Committee of Ways and Means propose to do in regard to the articles enjoying high protection.

The table shows the present rate of duty, the proposed rate of duty, both rates reduced to the ad valorem form, and the percentage of decrease. When gentlemen come to read this table, which I will ask to have printed in the

Globe, they will see that the Committee of Ways and Means have offered a bill which goes a great length in the interest of the people, and which reduces taxes, while not to the extent they ought to be reduced, yet in the right direction, against monopolies, and in favor of revenue. As the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STEVENSON] said the other day, it is an honest bill as far as it goes.

The table I have referred to I ask to have printed in the Globe as part of my remarks.

There was no objection. The table is as . follows:

Coal and shale.............

Leather, bend or belting.....

Leather, all upper, &c....

Leather, calf-skins tanned, &c.

Iron, in bars.........

41-44 Iron, railroad bars..

45-47 Iron, round, in coils, 3-16 inch or less... 48-52 Iron, not separate in home consumption.... 53-56 Iron wire, bright, &c., not less than No. 16.... 57 Iron wire, bright, &c., not over No. 25..... 58-59 Iron wire, bright, &c., over No. 25......... Iron wire, covered, not less than No. 16.. Iron wire, covered, not over No. 25... Iron wire, covered, over No. 25......

59-61

30 per cent...........

$7 per ton

1 cent per b..

35 per cent.....

70 cents per 100 lbs.

2 cents per lb. and 15 per ct....

2 cents per lb. and 15 per ct... 2 cents per lb. and 15 per ct....

3 cents per lb. and 15 per ct.... 4 cents per lb. and 15 per ct.... 7 cents per lb. and 15 per ct....

8 cents per lb. and 15 per ct.... 9 cents per b. and 15 per ct....

$1 25 per ton...

48

18 cents per 100 lbs.

139 1-6

24 cents per 100 lbs...

85 1-8

35 per cent.........

25 per cent...

1 cents per tb

64 3-4

43

48,885

33 1-3

45

45

40 per ct.......

10 cents per lb. and 11 per ct. 12 cents per fb. and 10 per ct..

Value, 32 cents or less per pound.

Value, over 32 cents per pound... Washed....

Woolen cloths.

10 cents per lb. and 11 per ct.. 12 cents per b. and 10 per ct.. 20 cents per lb. and 22 per ct.. 30 cents per b. and 33 per ct.. 50 cents per lb. and 35 per ct.. 50 cents per lb. and 35 per ct..

61 1-8 8 cents per fb. and 9 per ct..... 42 1-8 67 3-5 42 1-2 88 1-8 115 2-3 68 7-8 53.5-8 66 3-4 113 1-2 100 1-5 85

65 2-3 109 3-4 100 1-4 88 1-2 87 2-5

10 cents per lb. and 8 per ct... 8 cents per b. and 9 per ct..... 10 cents per b. and 8 per ct... 16 cents per b. and 9 per ct... 24 cents per fb. and 9 per ct.. 40 cents per b. and 30 per ct.. 40 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 40 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 16 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 24 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 32 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 40 cents per lb. and 30 per ct..

20 cents per tb. and 35 per ct.. 30 cents per lb. and 35 per ct.. 40 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 50 cents per lb. and 35 per ot. 20 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 30 cents per b. and 35 per ct. 40 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 50 cents per b. and 35 per ct. 20 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 30 cents per lb. and 35 per et. 40 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 50 cents per lb. and 35 per ct.]

20 cents per b. and 35 per ct. 30 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 40 cents per lb, and 35 per ct. 50 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 20 cents per tb, and 35 per ct. 20 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 6 cents per lb, and 35 per ct.. 8 cents per b. and 40 per ct..

50 cents per lb. and 35 per ct.

50 cents per Ib. and 40 per ct. 20 cents per lb. and 40 per ct. 50 cents per lb. and 50 per ct. 50 per cent.......

16 cents per lb. and 30 per ct. 73 24 cents per b. and 30 per ct. 78 1-2 32 cents per lb. and 30 per ct. 71 7-8 40 cents per lb. and 30 per ct. 74 16 cents per lb. and 30 per ct. 46 7-8 16 cents per lb. and 30 per ct. 96

5 cents per th. and 30 per ct.. 58 5-8 6.5 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 55 5-8

65 1-3 40 cents per fb. and 30 per ct. 54 1-4 53

Over 80 cents...........

Endless belts, &c..

47 5-8

2 cents per yard..

39 3-10

Colored, &c.

Unbleached

2 cents per yard and 10 per c. 40

Colored, &c.

Bleached

Unbleached.

Bleached

Colored, &c. Unbleached

Bleached. Colored, &c..

Unbleached....

Bleached.

5 cents per yard..

50 7-8

4 cents per yard..

40 3-4

5 cents per yard

39 5-8

4 cents per yard..

4 cents per yard and 10 per c. 38 2-3

5 cents per yard.......

4 cents per yard.....

5 cents per yard.

4 cents per yard......

5 cents per yard and 20 per c.

GO 7-8

4 cents per yard and 20 per c. 49 7-10

5 cents per yard.....

4 cents per yard,

5 cents per yard....

Jeans, denims, &c.:

54 cents per yard and 20 per c.

4 cents per yard.

4 cents per yard and 20 per c.]