Line of bill. be again read, so we may be able to understand it. The CHAIRMAN. It was read once already when offered in the nature of a substitute. Mr. EAMES. I ask it to be again read, for we certainly ought to know on what we are voting. Mr. BINGHAM. I beg leave to ask whether it is not an amendment to the text, and not in the nature of a substitute? That is the proposition of the gentleman from Kentucky. As I understand it, the amendment of the gentleman from New York is limited to the original text. The substitute moved by the gentleman from Kentucky is still pending, and not to be voted on until the original text has been perfected. Mr. COX. The amendment is limited to the subject of cotton. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment just read is limited to the subject of cotton. Mr. BECK. I desire to say a word on the amendment of the gentleman from New York. Mr. KELLEY. As I understand it, the gentleman from Rhode Island has called for the reading of the amendment of the gentleman from New York, because it has not yet been read. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asked the gentleman from Rhode Island whether he insisted on his demand for the reading of that part which had already been read, and which was taken from the old bill, and as he did not receive any answer, he supposed the gentleman from Rhode Island did not insist on his demand. Mr. EAMES. I asked to have the amendment read, in order that I might understand precisely what were its provisions. The Chair inquired whether I insisted on the reading, and I said that I did, but in the confusion I presume the Chair did not hear me. My only object is to know precisely what it is we are voting on, and if any gentleman in the House will state what it is the gentleman from New York proposes to insert, I will withdraw my demand for the reading. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky is on the floor to debate the amendment. It is the same amendment moved by the gentleman from New York when the House was in committee before. The amendment was read excepting the portion taken from the old bill, which he proposes to insert, striking out all after the ninth line in the pending section. If the gentleman, however, desires to have it read, the Chair will direct the Clerk to read it. Mr. EAMES. I do. The Clerk proceeded with the reading. Mr. BROOKS, of New York. I. suppose the gentleman from Rhode Island does not want really to have this read, but he merely wants to waste the time of the House. Mr. COX. Of course he does, and he will get enough of it before he gets through. The Clerk continued the reading. Mr. EAMES. I withdraw my request for any further reading, as I do not wish to delay the House. I merely made the request to have the mater proposed to be inserted read that we might know exactly what it is on which the gentleman from New York proposes a reduction from ten to twenty per cent. Mr. BECK. If it is the object of any gentleman on the other side by delays and calling for constant reading from the Clerk's desk to prevent the consideration of this bill, I think he will find that he commits a mistake. The bill may as well be considered now when it is before us for that pursose. My reason for introducing a substitute for the first twenty five lines of the section, is, in the first place, because a uniform reduction of ten per cent. does not and cannot even approach doing justice. I offer as a substitute the bill of the committee, because that bill, in regard to iron, cotton, and woolen manufactures, does attempt to discriminate intelligently, and while it does not reduce the duties as low perhaps as they ought to have been reduced, still it takes off only small percentages where the articles will not bear a large reduction, and it takes off large percentages where it is obvious that large reductions ought to be made. In other words, instead of applying a uniform leveling scale, without sense, rhyme, or reason, the committee, after full investigation, and after hearing all parties interested, endeavored by moderate reductions to do justice | to all interested, and if gentlemen will turn to the table which I had published in the Globe of last Thursday, and will look over that portion of the table relating to cotton manufactures, in regard to which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] now proposes to restore the provisions of the bill of the committee, Present tariff. they will find that on manufactures of cotton the bill reduces unbleached from thirty seven to twenty-seven per cent. ; colored, &c., from fifty-one per cent. to forty per cent.; some others from sixty per cent. to forty-nine per cent.; and some others from seventy-six per cent. to sixty-two per cent., the average reduction being about twenty per cent. as now proposed by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Cox.] On some of the articles, however, the reduction is not over fifteen per cent. ; on some it is sixteen per cent.; on some it is fourteen, depending altogether upon what the committee were made to understand, by the proof before us, ought to be done in each particular case. It is known to the Committee of the Whole that it is impossible in any tariff to arrange everything so as to reach exact justice by any uniform descending scale. But the committee designed by intelligent action, without seriously interfering with any of the interests sought to be protected-for there is protection in the whole of it-so to reduce the duty in each case as to make it approximate to what it should be. This will appear from the table to which I have referred, and which shows what has been done, done intelligently, and I think done well, to the extent we have gone. I therefore offered the provisions of the bill as a substitute, that we might consider together the whole question of iron, woolen, and cotton manufactures. And the gentleman from New York [Mr. Cox] proposes to take it up in detail, by offering as a substitute the portion relating only to cotton manufactures. I submit that the Committee of the Whole, in order to act intelligently, should look at the action of the Committee of Ways and Means. They will see that, while we have made no serious reductions, while we have not reduced to the extent we ought to have gone, in my judgment, still our reductions are made far more intelligently than can be the result of any uniform reduction taking off ten or any other per cent. That is all I desire to say, in addition to submitting as part of my remarks the portion of the table relating to cotton manufactures, that members of the committee may see what will be the effect of the propositions of the Committee of Ways and Means. It is as lows: Proposed tariff. fol 293 Cotton manufactures: 296 Unbleached... 2 cents per yard. 39 3-10 3 cents per yard and 10 per c. 51 7-8 2 cents per yard and 10 per c. 40 15,941 54,562 301-307 307 308-310 311-314 315 315-317 318 320 321 323 328 Unbleached Bleached Colored, &c. Unbleached.. Bleached Colored, &c.. Unbleached. Bleached.... Colored, &c... Unbleached.. 5 cents per yard.. 50 7-8 4 cents per yard... 40 3-4 483 20 5 cents per yard 39 5-8 44 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. 60 7-8 4 cents per yard and 20 per c. 49 7-10 220,998 1,525 16 2-3 28 4-5 18 2-11 27 3-11 -11 3-11 5 cents per yard... 4 cents per yard. 5 cents per yard.... 4 cents per yard... 5 cents per yard and 20 per c. 4 cents per yard and 20 per c. 18 2-11 27 3-11 Jeans, denims, &c.: 64 cents per yard.... 5 cents per yard.... 155-13 6 cents per yard and 10 per c. 334 Unbleached. 6 cents per yard. 5 cents per yard....... 63 cents per yard. 20 1-8 5 cents per yard... 5 cents per yard and 15 per c. 53 339 Unbleached. 5 cents per yard...... 74 cents per yard..... 64 1-2 6 per cent...... 48 1-2 5 cents per yard and 20 per c. 39 7-10 85,733 23 1-13 2821 3-7 389 44 4-5 51 3-4 74 cents per yard and 15 per c. 5 cents per yard and 15 per c. 26 2-3 344-353 (No change). 35 per cent... 35 35 per cent.. 35 6 cents per dozen and 30 per c. 6 cents per dozen and 35 per c. 71 1-8 5 cents per dozen and 24 per c. 58 76 5 cents per dozen and 28 per c. 62 3-8 49,870 18 54,904 14 3-4 Cotton thread, yarn, &c.: 361-366 367 368 370 Value not over 40 cents per pound.... Value over 40 and not over 60 cents per pound. Value over 60 and not over 80 cents per pound...... Line of bill. The question being taken on Mr. Cox's amendment, there were-ayes 30, noes 64; no quorum voting. The CHAIRMAN under the rule ordered tellers; and Mr. EAMES and Mr. Cox were appointed. The committee again divided; and the tellers reported-ayes 47, noes 74. So the amendment was disagreed to. ments: In line six, section two, strike out ninety" and insert eighty-five;" and in line nine, strike out "ten" and insert" fifteen;" so it will read: That on and after the day and year when this act shall take effect, in lieu of the duties impssed by law on the articles in this section enumerated, there shall be levied, collected, and paid on the goods, wares, and merchandise in this section enumerated and provided for, imported from foreign countries, eighty-five per cent. of the several duties and rates of duty now imposed by law upon said articles severally, it being the intent of this section to reduce existingon duties said articles fifteen per cent. of such duties. Mr. KERR. Mr. Chairman Mr. DAWES. Let us have a vote. Mr. KERR. The gentleman will have a vote when I get through. Mr. DAWES. I do not want to cut the gentleman off, of course. Mr. KERR. It may be that it is a waste of time to talk about this or any other part of this bill any more. But for my part I desire to say that I make this motion in good faith, because I believe that this House ought to consider this question, that it ought not to manifest such profound indifference to these questions as it does. It does not become this House, it may not become me to say so, but I say it with all respect and under a sense of duty, in my judgment it does not become this House to treat these propositions with so much indifference amounting almost to unmanly tri- || fling. I want to say that I do not approve the policy of reductions of the tariff by a sliding scale, and for this obvious and most sufficient reason that the tariff as it now exists was never adjusted upon any principle of consistency or equality at all. It was adjusted without reference to principle; it was adjusted as tariffs for protection are always adjusted, by a combination of interests and jobs; that is the way this tariff was made. It is not therefore intelligent action for this Committee of the Whole to go to work and tinker up a miser. able system like this in this way. Gentlemen may inquire of me why I propose to amend a bad system by seeking greater relief against the existing rates. I do it, as I said before, in good faith, because it does seem to me from what has already transpired in this House that the House is resolved that it will not take up and consider in detail, properly, logically, and intelligibly, the existing law, with all its defects and inequalities and excesses, and reduce the rates on a rational principle. I want some relief; a reduction of fifteen per cent. is better than a reduction of ten per cent., although it leaves all the existing inequalities in the bill. It is therefore that I make this motion, and I hope gentlemen will at least consider it. Nothing less will answer the demands of duty. I make no reflection upon any gentleman for any motion he may make here, or any opinion he may entertain. All I ask is that the Committee of the Whole will come to a fair, candid, and deliberate consideration of the subject. That has not yet been done, except with regard to the first section of the bill. That of which I now complain, and which gives me sadness, is that there is most apparent an entire disinclination to grapple with the investigation, to master its details, or to become acquainted with the true and rational principles of tariff adjustment. The existing law is full of gross inequalities and absurdities, having no sensible relation to either revenue or protection. Some of the duties embraced in this part of the law are absolutely enormous; for example: on locomotive tire, one hundred and sixteen per cent. ad valorem; on mill irons, &c., one hundred and five per cent.; on iron squares, one hundred and seven per cent.; on wrought iron railroad chairs, nuts, &c., ninetytwo and one half per cent.; on women's and children's dress goods, seventy per cent.; on bunting (for national flags) one hundred and seventeen and one half per cent.; on flannels, worth not over forty cents per pound abroad, one hundred and thirteen and one half per cent.; but on those worth eighty cents per pound abroad, only sixty-five and two thirds per cent.; the lowest duties on the finest articles, thus giving scandalous preference to the rich over the poor. Altogether, I say to the House that such a schedule of duties does not prevail in the tariff of any other nation in the world. In oppression of this kind our country enjoys an unenviable preeminence. The paper I hold in my hand will show that many of the reductions proposed by the bill of the Committee of the Whole would not take from the Treasury any appreciable amount. Some of the reductions we propose would not reduce revenue a penny. They are simply prohibitory of all importations. They were never imposed for revenue, but for protection, and most unconscionable and dishonest protection at that, solely in the interest of jobs, to keep out all competition, and to guard the doors against importations of any sort. I do not think it befits the vast importance of the subject to attempt in such a manner to perpetuate gross and outrageous impositions like these in the existing laws. This substitute of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. DAWES] only proposes to reduce these rates by taking off a pitiful ten per cent. of their amount. For example, the duty on pig iron is now seven dollars per ton. His substitute will leave it $6 30 per ton. The duty on certain kinds of blankets is now one hundred and nine and three fourths per cent. His substitute leaves it at nearly ninety-nine per cent. But the reductions proposed by the bill of the committee, which is itself too low, on the articles embraced in this substitute, exceeds on an average thirty per cent. on exist ing duties. If we reduce these duties to a revenue standard, which, in my judgment, would not exceed twenty five to thirty per cent. on any. thing, the result would be that every one of them would produce some revenue, and all of them together would produce more in revenue than they all do now, and would reduce, in the interest of the consumer of the country, the cost of these commodities and save them from the payment of untold millions of dollars in bounty, or in enhanced prices. This would be a great measure of justice to the people, and would work no injustice whatever to the bounty-fed protectionists and manufacturers. But to this appeal in the interest of the consumers of this country too many men in this house are deaf. If the people understood how this tariff law was made, and how it is proposed now to be perpetuated, it is my convietion (but in that I may be mistaken) that they would rally from their own indifference and lethargy, and thunder in the ears of their Rep resentatives, their demand for justice and the removal of the gross wrong, inequalities, and oppressions in the tariff laws as they stand today. Mr. Chairman, I call attention again to an extract from an analysis of the bill of the committee which I hold in my hand. In it the present duties are given and the rates proposed by the committees' bill. Those rates exceed an average of over thirty per cent. on existing duties. Yet they are moderate, and leave the duties to remain too high. They would not depress or disturb a single industry. But they would relieve the people most effect. ively against exorbitant prices, and at the same time give greater revenue than is now reeeived from these articles. This would occur because all these present duties are above the revenue standard and simply protective, and very many of them also prohibitory. I incorporate in my remarks a part of this analysis for reference and to give the facts to the people: Statement of articles, with present and proposed rates of duty, amount of reduction, and percentage of decrease in the bill H. R. No. 2322, reported April 16, 1872. $1 25 per ton... 18 cents per 100 lbs. 24 cents per 100 lbs.. 49 1-3 10 cents per lb.. 2 cents per lb. 50 cents per ton 32 9-10 $2,348,639 20 19 2,949,309 33 1-3 322,881 60 139 1-6 8 cents per 100 lbs. 61 5-6 274,730 56 85 1-8 12 cents per 100 lbs. 12 1-2 15 per cent.. 15 44 3-5 59 1-8 cent per ib.. 37 1-2 64 3-4 1 cent per lb. 43 30 per cent... 30 60 cents per 100 lbs. 37 1-7 44 9-10 340,792, 50 281 66 89.525 439.684 33 1-3 188,008 14 491.986 25 48,885 33 1-3 46 15 900,181 15 10,480, 33 1-3! 35 44 5-8 9.334 33 1-3 32 1-4 663 33 1-3. to 235 Over 60 and not over 80 cents.. Over 80 cents...... Blankets, value per pound: Not over 40 cents. Over 40 and not over 60 cents... Over 60 and not over 80 cents... Over 80 cents....... Hats of wool, value per pound: Not over 40 cents... Over 40 and not over 60 cents.. Over 60 and not over 80 cents.. Hosiery, value per pound: Not over 40 cents..... Over 40 and not over 60 cents.. Over 60 and not over 80 cents. Over 80 cents. 42D CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 210. 20 cents per b. and 35 per ct.. 30 cents per b. and 35 per ct.. 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 b. and 35 per ct.. 50 cents per b. 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 lb. and 35 per ct.. 61 1-8 8 cents per tb. and 9 per ct..... 42 1-8 67 3-5 421-2 88 1-8 115 2-3 68 7-8 53 5-8 66 3-4 113 1-2 100 1-5 85 652-3 109 3-4 100 1-4 88 1-2 87 2-5 10 cents per lb. and 8 per ct... 8 cents per lb. and 9 per ct... 10 cents per lb. and 8 per ct... 16 cents per lb. and 9 per ct... 24 cents per lb. and 9 per ct.. 40 cents per ib, and 30 per ct... 40 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 40 cents per b. and 30 per ct.. 49 3-8 34 2-3 140,206 19 1-2 2,265 16 2-3 54 1-4 37 1-8 61 1-7 410.268 19 5-8 4,677 17 1-2 1,916 29 2-3 16 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 93 24 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 83 32 cents per ib. and 30 per ct.. 70 40 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 54 3-8 16 cent pers b. and 30 per ct.. 21 cents per b. and 30 per ct.. 32 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 40 cents per lb. and 30 per ct.. 30 cents per b. and 35 per ct.. 40 cents per b. and 35 per ct. 50 cents per fb. and 35 per ct. 20 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 30 cents per th, and 35 per ct. 40 cents per b. and 35 per et 50 cents per ib, and 35 per ct. 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 lb. and 35 per ct. 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 lb. and 35 per ct. 20 cents per b. and 35 per ct. 20 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 6 cents per b. and 35 per ct.. 8 cents per lb. and 40 per ct.. 249 Gray or uncolored, duty shall be 10 per cent. less on ad valorem. 253 256 to Ready-made 263 264-271 272 274 277 279 282 285 288 290 293 296 Weighing 4 ounces and over per square yard.......... Articles of wear.... Webbings, &c.... Carpets, Aubusson, &c.. Brussels, (Jacquard M.). Venetian, two-ply, &c. Druggets, bockings, &c. Cotton manufactures: Unbleached. 70 cents per yard and 35 per c. 44 cents per yard and 35 per c. 40 cents per yard and 35 per c. 28 cents per yard and 35 per c. 17 cents per yard and 35 per c. 12 cents per yard and 35 per c. 25 cents per yard and 35 per c. 50 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 50 cents per lb. and 40 per ct. 20 cents per lb. and 40 per ct. 50 cents per lb. and 50 per ct. 50 per cent...... 40 cents per lb. and 35 per ct. 45 1-2 10,160 14 1-3 154.065 13 1-2 31,552 13 3-4 50 67 1-2 13.010 14 65 3-4 80,249 14 58 1-3 21.842 142-7 65 3-4 94.401 1427 48 7-8 1.050 14 2-7 48 1 2 83 1-3 2,570 14 1,423 14 Mr. DAWES. Mr. Chairman, no one, so far as I recollect, has doubted the sincerity of the convictions of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. KERR;] and hence it is altogether a work of supererogation on his part to insist upon it so often that he is sincere. It is, however, passing strange to me that the gentleman, conscious of his own rectitude in this matter, persists in denouncing the motives of all who differ with him upon this floor, and declaring that their action is in the interest of plunder and jobs-of theft and robbery. Why, Mr. Chairman, since the foundation of the Government gentlemen who believed as the gentleman from Indiana believes, have continued this cry in the ear of the people until the thing has become as a "sounding brass and tinkling cymbal." Yet, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is astonished at the indifference of the people to this outcry that comes 24 cents and 16 per cent.. from himself and others. He cannot understand why it is that the people look about and test all this by the practical results all around them. That is the whole answer which the people give to this constant outcry coming from the gentleman and his associates, based upon convictions the sincerity of which I never doubted. I Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says this proposed reduction is not enough; he would like à reduction of twenty or thirty per cent. know that. I know the gentleman would prostrate the entire industries of the country at the feet of foreign producers and collect-if he could have his way, for I have often heard him say so-all the expenses of this Government by direct taxation of the people of the country. That he could not get; and therefore he comes as near to it as he can. He desires to approximate all our legislation to 1,479 20 12.476 20 8,681 20 43,973 20 the condition of things which during his travels last summer filled his eyes with such admira. tion all over the continent of Europe and the kingdom of Great Britain. Sir, I never was there. I have a love and admiration for my country, a partiality for its institutions and its identity. This leads me-perhaps it is ignor ance of what the gentleman has seen and I have not-but it certainly leads me to feel that ignorance is bliss" under such circum stances. I would rather have our growth; I would rather have our history; I would rather have our means of development, our condition of society, our prosperity, whatever may be the gentleman's theory. 66 Now as to this question of ten per cent. If gentlemen desire any success in tariff legislation during this Congress they must accept this ten per cent. proposition. It is the only thing that can become a law. Take our ex perience on a single page of details, two whole days being spent upon ten lines, and then answer the question how we are going to get through with three or four hundred lines. In addition to that, the other branch of Congress has decided to take, instead of legislation by details, the ten per cent. reduction; just what we propose here. Hence, Mr. Chairman, if we desire to relieve the Treasury of its surplus, if we desire to take off duties at all, if we desire to be practical rather than theoretical, we must adhere to this ten per cent. reduction as the only attainable measure. It is asked will this proposition relieve inequalities, which I admit exist in the tariff. But, sir, do we expect to be more successful in details than any other House of Representatives ever has been? Can we relieve inequalities without making inequalities? If we entertain such expectations we arrogate to ourselves the ability to do that which no House of Representatives ever attained. We necessarily make inequalities at the same time that we undertake to relieve them. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. KERR. I modify my amendment so as to make the reduction fourteen per cent. instead of fifteen per cent. Sir, the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in pursuing a line of discussion not at all uncommon with him in this House, has undertaken to brush aside all that I have said, and to treat it as of no value, demanding no refutation, and entitled to no consideration. He undertakes to state to the House that in spite of all my theories about the oppressive rates of the tariff this country has always prospered under it; that it has grown rich and great and powerful under the protective system. Sir, the gentleman knows as well as I do that no such disgraceful tariff as this ever burdened an American statute-book before 1861. He knows that this system grew up during the late civil struggle in ou country, and that it had its birth and origin in a spirit of insatiate cupidity which took advan tage of the country's extremities, and enacted these laws for bounty, not revenue. knows that the existing tariff law exceeds in its inequalities, excesses, and enormities, every tariff that ever before existed in the history of this world. It never had a parallel. In 1861 the average of all duties under our tariff was nineteen and three fourths per cent. ad valorem on dutiable imports. never fattened and grown rich on bounty extorted from all other parts and people. Now it is true, Mr. Chairman, in the fiscal policy I would establish in this country I would not build up in Massachusetts, or in New England, or in any part or portion of this country, a combination of power and wealth and monopoly which should gather tribute in untold millions from the other portions of the country. I do not love my country that way. I oppose all such systems of fiscal legislation. They are not conceived, begotten, or perpetuated in the interest of this country at all, but in the interest alone of sections and classes, in the interest of particular favored industries, at the expense and to the neglect of others, which others are in all respects as worthy, meritorious, and honorable, as much entitled to Government favor and protection, and much more in need of it. This is the way in which the gentleman from Massachusetts illustrates his love of our country. It is not my way. I have never yet cast a single vote for bounty to friend or foe. Mr. Chairman, a word more. The gentleman intimates to the House that I was abroad last summer, and that I there saw the practical workings of some of the fiscal systems of the Old World. I did go abroad, and I did witness, Mr. Chairman, the practical workings of free trade in Great Britain, the greatest nation on the earth to-day in the development of its material resources and in its commerce, and I saw and studied with care and instruction the effect of free trade on the interests, commerce, agriculture, and mechanic industries of that country, and on the welfare of its labor classes, and in all respects I found the system to be most useful, excellent, and beneficent, alike on the country and the people of all classes. It gave new life and power and vigor to every one of their industries. They grew apace. They became more powerful than ever, and at the same time the interest of labor was advanced, the wages of labor increased, the hours of labor shortened-in every respect the condition of the poor improved. It will not do at this late day for the gentleman to attempt to ignore or to belittle the practical experience of great nations in favor of free trade. It is worth his study and the study of his country. It were well for the statesmanship of our country if it were more willing than it is to gather wisdom from the practical workings of wise fiscal laws abroad. On al impors, duitable and free, only four- If the experience of Great Britain, Belgium, teen and a half per cent. Now it is forty-eight and Prussia, tends to establish any one propoper cent. on dutiable imports, and forty-twosition more clearly than another, it is that the on all imports. Meanwhile every burden im posed on domestic production during the war under our excise system has been removed, and removed in the interest of the protected gentlemen who are growing rich and powerful under the tariff. He It is trifling with the intelligence of the country to assert that its prosperity is the result of these abominable laws. It is the mar vel of thinking men throughout the world that we are as pro-perous as we are in spite of this system. The youthful vigor and irrepressible energies of our people are so great that we are able to live, and grow, and increase in wealth, in spite of these burdens and injustices. But the dangerous and rapid tendency of the times under this system is to make the few immensely wealthy and powerful, at the expense of the many; to give aggregated capital special privileges and grinding control over labor; to make the rich richer and the poor poorer." The gentleman cannot impose on the country or on the House by saying that I am willing 10 prostrate all the industries of my country" Mr. Chairman, I love the industries of this country and the people of this country quite as much. and as faithfully aud unselfishly as the gentleman from Massachu setts. I think my love embraces as nearly all the country, every section and citizen in it, as his ever did or ever will. My section has highest development of national and individual prosperity, success, and power, can only be attained under freedom of exchange, with taxation for revenue alone. Here the hammer fell] Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman, I take issue with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. KERR] on his assertion that Great Britain is the greatest nation of the world. Sir, the United States is the foremost and greatest nation of the world, foremost and greatest in territory, in geographical position, in the prosperity and intelligence of her people, in the freedom and expansive adaptability of her institutions, and in the bright, broad, and long future which lies before the country and the people. Great Britain, sir, is in her decadence. Her institutions are effete, her Government decrepit. Her landed property is being absorbed by a few wealthy monopolists. Her workshops are being extinguished by the policy of her new nobility whose titles do but evidence the fact of suddenly acquired wealth ; and her work-houses swarm with skilled work men and their families who are fed on the bitter bread of pauperism. Sir, the gentleman, two days ago appealed to the condition of the free-trade countries of the world in support of his baneful theories. Where is the one that is not a warding rather than an example? Ireland is one. Before her union with England she had her protected industries. She was distinguished among the nations of the world by the supe riority of her paper, her silk, her flax, and other fabrics and wares. Where are her fac tories now, and where her skilled artisans? Ah! free trade has exterminated the one and exiled the other. Free trade with England has ruined Ireland. India, before Great Britain forced free trade upon her, had factories for the production of the rarest and most costly fabrics known to the world, and the ships of all nations sought her ports to buy her unequaled productions, but British free trade has vanquished her manufactures, and the stench which pervaded the wide district of Orissa was raised by a million people starving and rotting in the foetid air; the famine that per vaded that fertile district having equaled that which a few years ago more than decimated the sturdy people of Ireland. These horrors were but the legitimate effect of British free trade upon nations which were prosperous while they defended and protected their native industries. Yesterday the gentleman spoke of Venice and Spain and Holland as countries whose condition attested the beneficence of free trade. Where are the glories of Venice or Spain or Holland? Mr. COX. In Europe. Mr. KELLEY. While Holland manufactured and England sold raw material, while the Dutch taunted England with the fact that she sold her skins for a sixpence and bought back the tails dressed for a shilling, Holland was great and Britain was poor, and without commercial or naval prestige. But when Holland, presuming upon her commerc al supremacy, sought to become the carrier for the world and established free trade, and England, to develop her resources and promote domestic manufactures, adopted the protective system, Holland became a nation of the past, without hope, without aspiration, whose governing classes are a body of wealthy people who live on incomes derived from investments made by their ancestors. Need I pause to speak of Venice or Spain? Sir, what appreciable part does either impart to the grand impulses and movements of the era for which we legislate? History would sill speak of them, but the American people would not miss them were they blotted from the map of the world. Where can the gentleman point to a prosperous free-trade nation? Look at little Por tugal. At the beginning of the last quarter of the seventeenth century she was growing and prospering as no other nation of her size and population, and was vying to some extent with England in the export of her woolen goods. Her flocks of sheep were upon every hill-side and her factories in every vale. But free trade was to blast this prosperity! England sent her court Mr. Methuen to make a treaty, by which the wines of Portugal should be adinit ted to British markets at a low rate of duty, provided British woolens should be admitted into Portugal. Mr. Methuen succeeded, and reciprocal free trade was established between Portugal and what the gentleman from Indiana holds in his heart of hearts to be tho greatest nation in the world, and the sole exemplar for American statesmen. When that free trade came, the treacherous nation, more than a million of whose working people are paupers, and whose manufacturers are princes, reduced Portugal as all other free-trade uations had been reduced to a mere dependency of England. As a consequence of the diplo matic free-trade juggle, the manufactories of Portugal have ceased to exist, and her people have been dependent upon the spindles, the looms, the furnaces, and the forges of what, till a quarter of a century ago, was protective England. [Here the hammer fell.] Mr. BURCHARD rose. The CHAIRMAN. Debate is exhausted on the pending amendment. |