So it appears that the aristocratic wages of the United States compel the laboring men of New York or Illinois to work five hours more for his weekly rent, nineteen hours more for a ton of coal, thirteen hours more for a pair of blankets, three and a half hours more for a pair of boots, thirty-two hours more for a common woolen suit, nineteen hours more for twelve yards of alpaca, and one hour and three quarters more for a dozen of spool thread-all indispensable articles of the poorest households-more, by far, than his pauper competitor of Scotland. And for what? To supply the dire necessities of our Federal expenses? No. To supply a Treasury overflowing one hundred millions per annum? No. But to swell the already bloated monopolists, caressed and favored by this class legislation of this tariff ridden country.

Upon the Clyde, where these wages are paid, the manufacturing industry is all given to com. merce and ships. In fact, it is reduced to the question of working in iron and skilled labor. The same may be predicated to some extent of all industries of Great Britain. The latest reports from the great woolen and cotton industries of Great Britain indicate that even this excess of purchasing power just quoted would still more favorably compare with the high aristocratic wages of the much-favored State of Massachusetts. So that all the facts point with no uncertain index to the conclusion that

ENGLISH PAUPER LABOR IS A FICTION.

Waiving for a moment the real question, whether even if wages were lower than here that we ought to have by natural right and fair policy the advantages of it, I beg attention to some facts relating to the present condition of labor in England, the wages paid, the price of iron, and the effect which the present tariff, with that which the proposed tariff will have on certain American industries.

I repeat, that the allegation that English labor is pauper labor, is a fiction. I have shown that to-day it is as well paid, if not better paid, as to the purchasing power of wages received, than in America. The British system of taxation, by which its vast revenues are raised, is derived mainly from so called articles of luxury-tobacco, tea, coffee, income tax, and excise. These contribute mainly; while the essentials to the maintenance of labor and life, like coal, salt, wheat, wool, cotton, bear no burden. This results in a labor wage cheap, compared with that paid in a land such as this, where our very existence, from the cradle to the grave, is taxed; and so free trade properly gives England dominancy in the world's markets.

In May, 1871, British labor began its action for increased wages and reduced hours of work. Various demands were made and con cessions granted from that date to April 1, 1872, aggregating an advance of fifty per cent. in wages over the price paid at the same time in 1871, and in a reduction of hours of labor from sixty hours in 1871 to fifty-one and a half in 1872. The increase in the wage, based on the time current in 1871, with diminished hours in 1872, is practically an additional payment to the laborer. This increase of wages has been by sixpence sterling per hour; and the advance reaches from the coal or iron ore miner, through the coking-oven, the blast furnace, puddling-furnace, muck-bar mill, to the finished product. It represents ten shillings sterling per ton in cost of finished iron paid to labor over the current rates of 1871. And this advance in labor is paid to and enjoyed by labor alone; not a penny of the additional cost goes into the pocket of the iron-master in any shape whatever.

As there have been five advances of ten shillings, the year's increase in the cost of a ton of iron in labor, is represented by £2 108., equal to $12 50 United States gold, nearly. In 1871 Scotch pig iron, first quality, sold at 56s. to 60s. sterling. Yesterday the quotations

were 105s. to 112s. sterling. Then English allmine pig sold at 36s. to 42s.; now it is eagerly bought at 858. to 88s. 6d.

Scotch pig iron is used solely in foundery work here to tone the harder American iron; its use, therefore, is defined and limited by a natural law, and no influence can force its use beyond that limit. The duty can, therefore, be reduced to five dollars per ton or less. The effect of the present duty and of all duties is to add to the cost of American pig iron a sum equal to the duty on Scotch pigs, which Amercan labor pays in some way or other. The production in America in 1871 being some 1,800,000 tons, at seven dollars bonus to makers here, the amount of protection given is $12,600,000.

It is a matter of fact that whatever the cost of foreign iron, pig or finished, the American mill price for years has been skillfully adjusted to meet it. At present rates of freight and premium on gold, English best bar iron is one dollar per ton higher than American of same quality!

RISE IN IRON.

Much has been said here about the price of the tariff from nine, to seven dollars per ton. pig iron being raised since the reduction of It is true. The importations have increased, and yet the prices have increased. Two things may appear in this relation: first, that there must be an unusual demand the world over for the article; and second, that the reduction of the tariff increases the price of the article! As to the last, if it be true, what arrant recreants to Pennsylvania interests have we here. When we cut down pig to five dollars, how they struggled to get it up to nine dollars again! How they strain and storm now when we mention that a further reduction is desirable. The truth lies here.

an

66

Owing to the Franco-German war and its withdrawal of labor and chaos in business; owing to the Euglish coal strikes which made iron famine," as well as owing to the immense and growing demand of iron for every object, from the sewing-machine to the building, from the plow to the needle, from the steamship to the shoe-tack-there has been an immense demand. It is one of the phenomena of our material age of progress. But does this demand change the laws of economy? Is it true that a reduction of such a tax on the foreign product, coming in competition with our manufacture, by its inherent vigor of reduction adds to the price? The absurdity of such a proposition is unworthy of an idiot.

A speculative friend of mine purchased a fortnight ago in Scotland a lot of Scotch iron. He bought at thirty-three dollars per ton. Before the shipment arrives in New York he is offered fifty-three dollars per ton. His profits would have been $150,000. Who pays such profits arising from the difference between the foreign and home product? Mind you, this man is but a middle-man, a speculator. By our laws he is enabled to pocket his profits; out of what? From every horseshoe, every locomotive, every agricultural implement, every stove, every chisel, everything of iron used by the mass of consumers! When the great mass pay bounty to one interest and one section, can we wonder that overgrown with weening arrogance, it taunts all other occupa this splendid pauperism and rude in overtions and sections, as an oriental suzerain would treat its tributaries and slaves? Can we wonder that it sneers at the

REVIVAL OF COMMERCE,

unless it is paid, out of the Treasury itself, largesses upon its pet product when it enters into the building of a vessel?

Much is said about the decline of American commerce. The true causes lie in high values created by protective tariffs, internal revenue taxes affecting materials, cost of house rents, food, clothing, &c., compelling a high value in labor, these causes effectually preventing the

creation of a mercantile marine. To illustrate : the quotation on the Clyde is ship-plates at thirteen pounds sterling per ton, or sixtyfour dollars gold. The protected iron here costs five and a half cents per pound, or $123 20 currency. Reduced to gold at yester day's premium, it is $109 64. This is a difference of $45 64, or sixty-seven and a half per cent. in favor of the Clyde ship-builder; and this, mind, before an hour of labor is applied to adapt it to use.

The same relative difference exists in the angle and T-iron in the hull, the boilers, and machinery, and notably on the wire rigging of the ship.

A word on wire rigging; to show, ex pede Herculem, where the brute and selfish strength lies which holds our ships from launching upon the deep. On wire rope, whether galvanized rope for ships or plain for colliery and mining uses generally, the present bill increases the duty to that paid on the wire of which the rope is made.

The larger portion of such rope in actual use ranges from one half to one inch diameter; these are the current sizes. The size of wire gauges from No. 20 down to No. 16. Plain wire rope now pays duty of thirty five per cent., and galvanized rope of two and a half cents per pound specific, or fifty-six dollars per ton. These gauges of wire in the proposed bill pay three and a half cents per pound. The bill is skillfully drawn, so as to show by comparison with existing duty a removal of the fifteen per cent. ad valorem rate levied additional to the three and a half cents per pound, creating the impression that as wire is reduced so also is wire rope. The reverse is the case. This bill advances the duty ou plain wire rope, from an average duty on the sizes most in use, of $56 36 to $78 40 per ton, or from two and a half to three and a half cents per pound! Being used in coal and ironore mines, and in many other ways, it not only adds to the cost of mining but it affects the cost of a ship; and it is proposed in the interest of the only wire-rope maker that I know of, at Trenton, New Jersey, and in drawn wire of the special pet of the Government, at Worcester, Massachusetts. It is their interests which have engaged gentlemen to advocate the bill on behalf of California, whose Representatives are silent on the subject; for in that State I know of no wire-drawing or wire-rope mill to be established or to be benefited.

I annex some figures on plain and galvanized wire rope, which show the whole thing: galvanized wire rope for ship-rigging, sizes most in use from one to three inches in circumference; average cost of one and a quarter, one and a half, one and three quarters, two, two and a half, and three inches; £27 in England; equal to dollars, gold, $182. Present duty, two and a half cents per pound, $56 per ton; equivalent to ad valorem forty-three per cent.; proposed duty, three and a half to ad valorem sixty per cent. cents per pound, $78 40 per ton; equivalent Colliery rope,

coal and ore mines, and other purposes; sizes most in use as above, one to three inches circumference. Average cost of sizes, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, and 3 inches, £32 16s. in England; in United States, gold, $161; present duty, thirty-five per cent., $56 35, or two and a half cents per pound; proposed duty, three and a half cents per pound $78 40 per ton; equiv alent to ad valorem of forty-nine per cent.

The smaller the rope the smaller the wire used in the manufacture, and, as a matter of fact, four fifths of the rope in use is made of wire gauging from twenty to sixteen gauge, which therefore positively enhances the duty.

If I should make the same calculations as to every component part of a ship, as I have often done, the cause of our decline in shipping would not ignorantly be attributed to Alabamas and Shenandoahs, nor would the failure to revive be found in any other imped

iment save the stubborn persistence of selfish ironmongers and other manufacturers.

I have often urged here, as I have urged from Maine to New York, in another forum, that if this Government will not relieve us so that we may build ships, why not repeal the registry law and let us buy abroad; nay, let us buy and place them under our flag, even if we have to pay a tariff on the ship per ton! All other nations. may go to the Clyde and buy. We alone are prohibited. It is a burning, blistering reproach.

Oh! but we do not want to help Great Britain! Well, Great Britain helps herself by our ignorance or stubbornness. While we have been losing our wealth by our tariffs since 1861, she has increased one hundred and twenty-five per cent. or more. But Great Britain and British labor is hostile to our interests. Well, this Administration, in our pusillanimous recreancy to the solemn treaty for the adjustment of damages, does not seem so very unfriendly to that ubiquitous and commercial Power. We can trade free between our own States; we have no registry of the ships of South Carolina or Louisiana, Maine or New York; yet, by our spite or spirit, we have been slow to give cordiality between North and South. Indeed, we have fomented all discontents by bad rule and reprisals of men and property years after civil strife; and yet, and yet we allow trade to be free between the States by land and sea, while toward our loving British cousins we are ready to bow our necks at Geneva but not at Glasgow !

RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO IRON.

I would therefore earnestly urge the following change in the bill on bar iron. It reads, "bar iron, rolled or hammered, not less than three eighths or more than two inches thick; not less than one or more than six inches wide, and rounds and squares not less than three quarters or more than two inches, shall pay three fourths of a cent per pound;" and "bars not less than one quarter inch thick or more than one to six inches wide, and round and square less than three-quarter inch or more than two inches shall pay one cent per pound." Under the present differential duty none of these sizes have been imported for years, the duty absolutely prohibiting it. If amended so as to include the sizes sold at one uniform sterling price in England, say "not less than one half or more than three inches, round and square, and flats not less than one quarter or more than two inches thick, nor less than one inch wide or more than six inches wide," it would establish a uniform classification, lead to increased duties, lessen the cost to consumers, and remove the demand from American mill owners, who since 1865 have had absolute control of that branch of trade.

The one-half and five eighth round and square sizes have special uses in hardware manufactures; while two and a quarter to three round and square bars are largely used in line shafting in woolen, cotton-yaru, and other mills, and the extra cost in equipping industrial enterprises compels a higher cost of production. The ill effect of these and similar burdens is to give artificial vitality to industry. It not only affects commerce, but it increases the cost of a railroad. It compels a high freight rate to reimburse for the outlay. It lessens the value of the farmer's crops. adds to the cost of all implements, the hoe, the plow, the loom, and the anvil. It burdens labor only, labor which is too often blind to the fact that increased wages is due to increased cost of living with no commensurate benefit from the increase. Like the blind Samson, it pulls down in its reckless strength the very pillars of our prosperity, and it will have the same end, to crush the life out of itself!

It

will still continue for a time to harass and impoverish the people, and coming to the question of their adjustment according to the principle of cy pres, i. e., to get as near right as possible, we must consider how much money our Government ought to raise for its frugal administration. No discussion of this or any other bill affecting the revenues of the country can be comprehensive unless at the same time regard is had for the budget as a whole. We must know what the expenditures are to be, before we can wisely and judiciously proceed to impose revenues.

Before proceeding to express my views as to what the expenditures of the Government should be limited to, let us consider the estimates of the Administration:

Administration estimates for 1872-73.

$3,421,812 17,443,531 3,383,350

The miscellaneous expenses, over eleven millions, amount to as much as it used to cost to run the entire Government within a period when some of those now present were in public life.

Except interest on the public debt and pensions, there is not an item in the Adminis tration estimates which is not susceptible of material reduction. Even the interest is overstated fully $10,000,000, if the Administration succeeds in cajoling this House into neglecting to materially reduce the revenues from customs and internal taxes.

HOW MUCH IS IT NECESSARY TO EXPEND?

I think I am exceedingly fair, and largely within the mark, when I claim that the expenditures for 1872-73 can be reduced, without inconvenience, to $200,000,000, including interest on the public debt, and the one per cent. sinking fund provided for by law, as the annual rate or amount at which the principal should be reduced. Indeed, I shall be prepared to show at a proper time that the ex32,922,510 penditures could be reduced to $175,000,000; but I am willing to treat the subject fairly, and I claim that $200,000,000 is enough and plenty, and with the improved confidence in the Government which such a reduction would occasion, the debt could be funded without the aid of juggling syndicates at a lower rate of interest, which now it cannot be. With economical management $200,000,000 for 1878 would pay all expenses, put $25,000,000 in the sinking fund, and leave a substantial surplus at the end of the year.

18,058,089

6,174,001 5,445,618 30,480,000

145,000

2,000.000

10,992,200

110,932,774 11,258,325

19,468,563

273,025,773 28,679,263

THE PRESENT TAX SYSTEM.

Having now considered how much we need to expend, let us next consider how we shall obtain the money. The existing revenue sys 'tem yielded as follows during the year ended June 30, 1871:

$301,705,036e

These are the Administration estimates on paper as published in the official documents. What they are in reality may be judged by the fact that included in these estimates is $28,500,000 for reduction of the national debt, while the avowed intent and object of the Administration is to expend $100,000,000 per annum for this purpose. Including the $28,500,000 alluded to, the official estimates are far below what the actual expenditure is found to be.

Excluding the expenditure for reduction of debt, and they are perhaps not very far at fault. But what do they reveal, taken at the figures furnished by the Administration? That in 1873, eight years after the close of the war, this Government is to cost the people $273,000,000, or nearly five times as much per annum as it did before the war, when the net ordinary expenditures were but $60,000,000!

Even af er interest on the public debt is deducted from the budget at both periods the figures of 1873 are three times as great as those of 1860. Our legislative expenses should be no greater now than then; our judiciary should cost no more; our executive ought not to be more expensive; our Army is no greater, or at least should not be greater. As for our Navy we have none at all to speak of; and no foreign commerce, alas! for it to protect. The Indians should cost less, for they are dying out. Our post-office system is but very little further extended now than then. Our customs service is no more extended as to ports and districts; and although under existing protective classifications and protective infinities of detail, and protective bewilderments of incomprehensible and tortuous regulations, the service is difficult to perform, it should not cost the immense enhancement shown in the estimates.

EXPENDITURES AND REVENUE.

Customs.....

Internal revenue.......................... Public lands..... Miscellaneous..

Total..........

..$206,270,408 143,098,154 2.388,646 31,566,737

.$383,323,945

In addition to this, some eight or nine millions were derived from the sale of ordnance, stores, &c., which I leave out of view.

For the current fiscal year ending on 30th June next, the Treasury estimates the revenues at $365,000,000. This is an under-estimate. For the succeeding year ending June 30, 1873, the Treasury estimates the revenue at $359,000,000. This is a still more flagrant underestimate. Recollect that these estimates are necessarily based on the assumption that there will be no change in the revenue laws. Recollect also that this is a growing country, and that the revenues have steadily increased from year to year in the past, and without change in the laws are bound to do so in the future, and gentlemen will be able to measure the ingenu. ousness of this Administration simply from an exhibit of its comparative estimates of reve

bring the revenues down to the level of the expenditures, and avoid increasing any further that heavy and useless and mischievous balance in the Treasury with which it continually threatens to destroy the trade, peace, and prosperity of the country. If the custom rates are cut down one half they will yield at least one half as much as they would if not cut down. That is a proposition which even protectionists will concede. But men of my school go further than this, and believe that under such circumstances the yield would amount to consider ably more than one half. But taking the minimum amount, we should obtain in the form of revenues for 1873 fully $200,000.000. Estimating the expenditures at $200,000,000 and we have the following:

BUDGET FOR 1873.

Revenues from half of present rates, minimum $200,000,000; expenditures, (including interest and sinking fund,) maximum $200,000,000. And this without at all disturbing the so much coveted heavy balance of $100.000,000 in the Treasury.

This is what we can do; this is what the heavily laden people of this country desire us to do. Now, let us consider what the Ad. ministration proposes we shall do. We have already seen that it proposes to expend, instead of $200,000,000 for all expenditures, $273,000,000 for ordinary expenses, and as much more as it can get for reduction of debt and whatever else for which it may be able to smuggle in deficiency bills. Let us now see what it proposes in the bill presented by the chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means.

THE SO-CALLED MAJORITY BILL.

The principal features of this bill are heavy reductions in the duties on tropical products, in coal, and in salt, moderate but uneven reductions in iron and hardware, moderate reductions in wools and non-competing woolens, slight or no reduction in competing woolens, moderate reduction on cottons, heavy reduc tions in lumber, and a free list framed mainly to suit the requirements of manufacturers. Its internal revenue features are moderate reductions on tobacco and stamps, and an abolishment of the tax on gas.

This bill deserves both commendation and censure. I prefer to be thankful for the good, the half loaf which is discernable in its pro. visions. It seems both a free-trade and a protection bill; but it is neither. Where it reduces the duties on coal and salt it is somewhat free trade; where it stabs tea and coffee and merely sacrifices woolens, it is "protection." Where it offers up the pet lamb of Pennsylvania to the sacrificial knife, it is free trade; where it refuses to materially cut down hosiery, shoes, fancy goods, notions, glassware, cutlery, and plated ware, but lets in a thousand little articles for manufacturers free, it is protection.

While if the comparatively trifling reductions it makes in the whole amount of revenue is taken into consideration, it proves not only to be neither free trade nor protection, but substantially nothing at all. It claims in its title to be "A bill to reduce duties on imports and to reduce internal taxes, and for other purposes. "The other purposes" prove upon inspection to be all there is in it, for the reduc tion of duties and internal taxes it effects will scarcely more than counterbalance the natural increase of revenue from these sources. What these other purposes are has been already indicated.

LAST TARiff.

The tariff passed at the last Congress was heralded as a reform. It had a pretentious look. It pretended to reduce revenue; whether it did or not appears in the one clever thing in it, to wit: the reduction on pig iron from nine dollars to seven dollars per tou. The Secretary of the Treasury in his report had the frankness to confess that this reduction (which should have been to three dollars) did enhance the

revenue, for it increased importation. It illustrated the principle, which Great Britain has proven, that a reduction of custom rates increases the revenue. But how as to the real reduction of taxation? Some allowances must be made for the simplicities of our nature, but there is no one so simple who will not understand that the bill of General Schenck, which the free-traders of this House won from a reluctant majority-the so-called "forked-tail" tariff-was a delusion. If not, why does the clamor for reform go on in both parties and from all sections?

The protectionists praise their own enforced virtue in repealing many millions of tariff tax, and as this reduction has formed the staple of Republican platforms, editorials, and oratory, it will be just as well, in advance of similar schemes now on foot, to advise the public of the specious character of such reforms and reduction.

To thoroughly understand what is to come on this topic, I present a table, showing the estimated reduction of the tariff by the last legislation. It bears the honored signature of Mr. Edward Young, chief of the Statistical Bureau. I do not change Mr. Young's figures. My only criticism is that they do not go far enough, But to the unwary they seem a glowing account of a real success. May I add two columns to the official paper? I endeavor, with the best data, to show the amount of taxes that are additionally ground out of the people by the last tariff act. Thus

it will be seen how pretentious is the claim to reduction, and thus may be discovered and exposed the method by which such delusions will be repeated. The estimated consumption of the articles in the column added by me is much below the mark, as it has been or can be easily shown. I append this table marked "Exhibit A" to my remarks.

In connection with this table I call attention to the pretended reduction on gunny-cloth. It was, in fact, no reduction at all, as the old laws provided a duty of three cents a pound on that article, valued at less than ten cents a square yard. The last law provides two cents per square yard if valued less than seven cents, and three cents if valued at over seven cents per square yard. It is well known that gunny. cloth invariably costs more than seven cents the square yard, and will therefore have to pay three cents per yard as before.

In brief, I maintain now as I did in my place in Congress at the time, and as I shall do again till my term expires, that the tariff-tinkering of the Fortieth Congress, about which so much laudation has been sung by the unreflecting members of the Republican party, was a swindle on the people, and this the "Exhibit A' will show.

HOW CHEAPLY THE CUSTOMS ARE COLLECTED.

But supposing all these figures indicate to be true; suppose the reductions of the last tariff have been exaggerated; yet it is claimed that the Administration, in its peculiarly pure way of running the custom-house, is entitled to the gratitude of a frugal people. Let us see. Let us compare the Administration of Johnson in 1868 with the present Administration in 1870 to see what claim there may be to peculiar vigilance in collecting the revenue by the present Administration.

The sums collected under the two Administrations for the fiscal years 1868 and 1870, respectively, were:

Amount of duty collected in 1868 under the so-called dishonest Johnson administration was $160,511,679. Amount collected in 1870, under the most honest and skillful Grant administration was $191,221,768, or $30,710,089 more.

In the first place, the dutiable goods imported in 1868 were $329,661,272, and in 1870 they were $406,131,904.

Thus we imported $76,470,632 more dutiable goods in 1870 than in 1868.

But I am well aware that it is asserted that this increase of dutiable goods is not owing to actual importation, but to the simple fact that the revenues were more faithfully collected. Now, it so happens that many articles pay a specific duty, either per pound or measure, on which undervaluation is perfectly powerless. I herewith furnish a table of twenty-two items only, whereon specific duties were collected in the two respective fiscal years, giving a column for quantities as well as revenue, and it will thus be seen that $19,500,000 were collected more in 1870 than in 1868 on these articles for the simple reason that we imported more in the year 1870.

For the exact proof of these figures I refer to the table marked "Exhibit B," at the end of my speech.

A certain weak administration in England in the last century, who were anxious to take credit for all windfalls that befell the empire, was taunted by a wit with the astonishment that the ministry failed to take credit for the happy event of an increase in the royal family. Perhaps our Administration may likewise feel inclined to take credit for the increase of foreign pig iron or scrap iron. The table marked "B" is, however, as instructive as it is interesting. Thus, for instance, if we had reduced the duty on pig iron from nine dollars to six dollars a ton, we should have got in 1870 by the natural increase of importation $1,078,800 revenue, or some $63,000 more than in 1868. Or if we had reduced the duty on scrap iron from eight dollars to $4 50 per ton, we should have got a duty of $666,000, or $26,000 more in 1870 than in 1868.

Or we could have reduced the duty on rolled iron one third of the duty of 1868 and got more revenue in 1870 than we did get in 1868, and so on with most of the articles. It is this undeniable fact in political economy in a young growing country which requires the adjustment of a tariff that presses the life-blood out of a people and its industries.

Surely, we have a right now to demand not only a substantial reduction of revenue and taxation. With a fresh Congress adding fifty new members of liberal tendencies in economies we have a right to expect that revenue, when reduced, should carry with it a reduction of taxation. Yet we have passed through nearly the whole of this long session without a murmur in favor of substantial reform. I fear that we are doomed to go before the people to receive not its clamors, but its condemnation.

The country has demanded reform; but the Administration wants money; money to pay off the bonds and keep its Wall street friends in good humor. Just look at it! One hundred millions a year on account of principal piled on top of $110,000,000 a year for interest makes $210,000,000 a year, and all in gold! With $210,000,000 a year flowing into their coffers, a clique of operators might be enabled to control within certain limits the prices and the markets of the world. I claim that this policy is pernicious, and that we should not pursue it beyond the strict limits of the law, which provides for the interest and one per cent. per annum for principal; altogether, say $135,000,000 a year.

The Administration also wants money for the election. It has the sword. It wants the purse. It has twenty millions of building con tracts on hand. The judicious expenditure of this sum will employ a large number of voters. There are thirty millions to expend in the Post Office Department, mainly for salaries and mail contracts. There are five millions nominally for "Indians," but really for the "traders" and other parasites and robbers that hover on the borders. There are fitty or sixty millions to expend in the War and Navy Departments. Then there are millions for the vigilant and faithful in the customs and rev enue services; twenty or thirty millions in the

Departments, and no end of plunder lying around loosely among the various appropriations, patriotically voted by Congress out of the pockets of the people.

measure.

THE MINORITY BILL.

As for the bill which is offered by a minority of the committee, it is a rank protective It began by placing tea and coffee forthwith on the free list, and throws more or less of everything else overboard to float pig and bar and scroll and scrap iron and steel, which it does not touch at all. It pretends to relieve the country from forty or fifty millions in duties and taxes, but it puts twice and thrice this sum into the pockets of a few constituents of its supporters. It gives the farmer free tea and coffee, but it lowers the market for his products. It plunders him in the price of every agricultural implement or tool, every nail, screw, brad, horseshoe, or pound of wire he is obliged to buy. It makes a profound fifty million bow to the assembled nation; then picks its pockets of several hundred millions.

In this bill, on salt in bulk, the duty is reduced from eighteen cents per one hundred pounds to eight cents, and in sacks from twenty four cents per one hundred pounds to twelve cents per one hundred pounds. Why should we not at once repeal this contemptible tax? It is nearly two hundred per cent. It has had enough bounty. Why not put it on the free list with coal? But the details of this bill will be cared for when we come to the discussion by clauses.

Are these measures such as the situation of the country demands? Do they afford a substantial relief to the people? Do they loosen the shackles of commerce, lighten the farmer's burden, or lessen the hours of the working. man's toil? Do they represent the wishes of any portion of this nation? What need to ask these questions? The majority bill affords some relief; the other very little, and that little coupled with robbery of and insult to the nation. They loosen nothing, except it be the morals of the people, who cannot fail to be edified by the examples of disingenuous

ness they contain. They lighten nothing; they lessen nothing. They are shams; shams differing less in kind than degree; and as shams I shall oppose them. What the country demands is not pretended, but real reduction; and not reduction for the sake of Pennsylvania iron masters, but reduction for the sake of reduction!

The time is fast going by when this House will possess the opportunity it now enjoys to earn the gratitude of the nation. Slowly but steadily all those features which follow in the wake of privileges, monopolies, and centralized power and wealth, and which have tended to degrade and oppress the people of Europe, are appearing upon our horizon.

DANGER TO LIBERTY.

They threaten the liberties of the people. As well might we at once go back to the barbaric days of Akbar or Charlemagne, and yield implicit obedience to the feudal lord and the lord's superior. There is no despotism so galling as that of a Government constituted to secure, but fatal to oppress the people in their rights. If there be one act which society and its agent, the Government, should foster in freedom, it is trade. The time has gone by when Governments should undertake to fix the prices of goods or regulate the processes of manufacture. The struggle has been long. It is marked by tears and blood through the centuries; but in the language of John Stuart Mill, in his book on Liberty

"The cheapness and good quality of commodities are most effectually provided for by leaving the producers and sellers perfectly free, under the sole check of equal freedom to the buyers for supplying themselves elsewhere."

The gentleman from Pennsylvania would limit liberty by a wall of flame, shutting us in to our own land. He pictures to us our country, gifted with all soils, all climates, all mineral resources, and with the powers of wind, water, and fuel, on a grander scale than the nations of Europe combined. His picture is entrancing. It would be patriotic if it were not heretical. His love of country is so ardent that he

|

would have no soil send us its product. He would, if consistent, grow the palm in Ver mont and the pepper in New York. He would have the balmy climes of Algeria here to reproduce the dear orange and the expensive date. He would have no wind to turn the mills which pump water on the arid plains of California which blow from China; and no breeze to move our ships on our lakes which comes from Labrador! He would so restrain our liberty of commerce that no water which touched the Canadian shore should turn a wheel to make flour for the people; for he would foster home industry by requiring all wheels to be made of iron and all motive power come from coal! The fuel which God has planted within the hills of his State should be the only sources of caloric to run the spindles of New England or the saw-mills of Michigan! In fine, he would obscure the very shine of heaven, since the sun in its chariot visits other climes and other people; and in its stead, if consistent, he would light up the darkness of our earth, which he would desire, by gas made from Pennsylvania carbon and through conduits

made of native iron.

The liberty I love has a larger range and a better principle. It would bind the world, not by isolating nations, but by the civilizing amenities of interchange. It would make the weakness of every man and every nation the strength of all by that law of interdependence which is the philosophy of humanity and the glory of our faith.

On behalf of the progressive, scientific economists of this age and country; on behalf of a rigorous and fair expenditure and an honest collection of our revenues; on behalf of natural equity outraged by this tariff system; on behalf of the impoverished and unrepresented masses, and on behalf of that spirit of liberty which is destined to make our star more beautiful and glorious as the ages roll on, I enter my protest against all schemes which make Government the organ of oppression and wrong, and not the refuge of the || people.