Mr. FARNSWORTH. That can be done cordage, chains, anchors, and the like. Now, by the committee of conference. Mr. BROOKS. I think it would be well to have the Senate amendment printed. Mr. FARNSWORTH. We can do very well without that The motion to non-concur in the amendment of the Senate and ask for a committee of conference was agreed to. The SPEAKER subsequently appointed Mr. FARNSWORTH, Mr. PAINE, and Mr. BECK as the conferees on the part of the House. PROMOTION OF AMERICAN COMMERCE. The House then resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 929) to promote Ameri can commerce. Mr. BLAIR. I feel justified in saying that it is not sufficient, when asking for extraordinary remedies for particular interests, to say that to some extent they are languishing at this time. That is a common complaint, one which applies quite as much to other interests as to this one. Now, sir, taking for granted, for the sake of argument, all that has been said concerning this special ship-building interest, what is the remedy which this bill proposes? And I may be allowed to say that, as I understand, this bill comes here upon its own merits alone; it does not have the sanction of the Committee on Commerce as a committee, but the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] is allowed to report it to the House; as I am informed the Committee on Commerce has not committed itself to the measure. What is the remedy that this bill proposes? It consists of five sections, the first of which provides That section four of an act entitled "An act amendatory of certain acts imposing duties upon foreign importations," approved March 3, 1865, and section fifteen of an act entitled "An act increasing temporarily the duties on imports, and for other purposes,' in regard to the copper interest I believe I can The copper mining interest upon Lake Supe- interest flourished largely, growing out of the fact that the amount of copper used had largely increased in consequence of the great number of ships that were then built. Now, sir, the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. PIKE,] who made an elaborate speech the other day, intends not only to antagonize this interest of copper, but to leave every other interest in this country unprotected. Let me read from the speech he made on that occasion: "Mr. MYERS. If the gentleman will allow me, I do not know that I disagree with him in what he has said, but I do not like one of his arguments. Does he mean to tell this House and the country that the relief we have given from taxation is simply to certain rich manufacturers, and not to the laborers whom they employ throughout the whole country? If not, why does he use such an unnecessary argument here in behalf of a just bill? "Mr. PIKE. I made a statement that cannot be contradicted, that we relieved from taxation the rich manufacturers of the country. It cannot be denied that we have failed to relieve the humble interests of the country that I have described. I know the argument of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MYERS.] It is familiar to me from my boyhood. It is that the incidental benefits that accrue to the manufacturer reach the employé. I have used that kind of argument ever since I learned to talk in publie. I was a protectionist in my day, and I argued that in protecting the manufacturer we protected the employés; that manufacturing establishments would draw around them operatives who would receive the drizzle of protection that filtered through their employers. I am not so thoroughly imbued with the justice of that idea as I used to be." It would be easy, and perhaps it would be well, to state more at large what this copper interest is. But I will not detain the House further than to say that the Lake Superior copper mines produce nine thousand of the twelve I cannot understand the gentleman from thousand five hundred tons of copper produced Maine, Mr. Speaker, for he places the shipin this country. It is, therefore, a very import- || building interest, or rather this bill, upon the ant interest. I need not enlarge upon the fact ground distinctly that it is hostile to the prothat while this interest has been more devel-tective policy of the country. He proposes to oped in the mines of my State than elsewhere, do that with that interest. I will not stop here it is nevertheless a vast and increasing interest to complain of the manner in which he treated all over the country. this interest then. But if he used the language What I wish to say here is, that I do not that he says he did he was much less of a prowish to make any point against the ship-build-tectionist than I supposed him to be. He says that he used the argument that by protecting the rich manufacturers the poor people would have some little "drizzle" of that protection at the same time. I have been a protectionist all my life, and I say to the gentleman that I have never mentioned any such "drizzle" in any of my arguments. I refer to this solely for the purpose of showing that the gentleman was against this and the other great productive industries of the country. This Congress at least has long enough shown a disposition not to abandon that protective policy; hence I do not think it necessary to discuss it now. approved July 14, 1862, be, and the same are hereby, ing interest; while I will give my vote and amended so that the tonnage tax therein imposed shall be collected only from vessels arriving from foreign ports. I see no objection to that section, and do not intend to make any contest upon it. Neither do I think it is a matter of so great importance that this bill should be passed on that account. The third section of this bill pro vides: That the fifth section of an act entitled An act concerning the registering and recording of ships or vessels," approved December 31, 1792, is hereby repealed. That has reference, I understand, solely to registering and recording of vessels. The fourth section of this bill provides That hereafter boats or other vessels of the United States less than twenty tons burden shall not be enrolled, and no certificate of registry shall be required of them. Such boats or vessels shall be licensed, and shall in every other respect be liable to the rules and regulations and penalties now in force relating to registered and enrolled vessels. This, I presume, is all very well; but it certainly cannot particularly relieve the shipbuilding interest of the country at large. The fifth section provides That the provisions of the act entitled "An act authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to issue registers to vessels in certain cases," approved December 23, 1852, are hereby extended to vessels built within the United States: Provided, That the same were not transferred during the rebellion to foreign owners. Now, in all these four sections I find nothing that can very materially aid the ship-building interest. I conclude, therefore, that the sum of the great benefits that are to be derived from this bill are to be found in the second section, which provides That a drawback equal to the duties paid be allowed to ship-builders, on lumber, cordage, iron, copper, chains, and anchors actually used and employed by them in the building and rigging of any ship, steamer, or other vessel built within the limits of the United States; the amount of drawback in all cases to be ascertained and paid in such manner and under such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury: Provided, That five per cent. on the amount of all drawbacks so allowed shall be retained for the use of the United States by the collectors paying such drawbacks respectively. This, then, is the main object of the bill: to allow a drawback upon copper, lumber, iron, voice in every case to aid that interest, so far Mr. PIKE. I wish to say, with the permis- Mr. BLAIR. I do not yield for a speech, Mr. BLAIR. I will say further in explana- Mr. LYNCH rose. Mr. BLAIR. I suppose the gentleman expects to reply to me, and what he has to say I prefer he shall say then. The gentleman from Maine says that the ship-building interest has not been a very large patron of the copper interest. That may be true; but my opinion was otherwise. It will result, if this be adopted, that the copper produced abroad will come in here free, and will be consumed by the ship-building interest to the extent needed. My opinion is, however, that copper is a material very largely used in ship-building. During the war the copper I say, then, that the drawback is simply an infraction of the protective policy of the country. There is not an argument that can be used in favor of it which is not equally an argument for the abolition of the entire protective policy of the country. It strikes at that and nothing else. If it is best for the United States to foster its own industry, if it is best to take care of our own interests, then we cannot consistently pass this bill. I will say further that I do not believe the passage of this bill is necessary. For when I look into the gentleman's figures which he took so much pains to arrange for our information, and see what the amount of tonnage was in 1861, as compared with the amount in 1867, it appears plain enough from those very tables that the ship-building interest has not suffered any more than the other great interests of the country. It is true that during the war, in consequence of the existence of confederate cruisers on the ocean, our ships were to a great extent driven from it, and the natural conse quence is that as yet they have been unable to be replaced. The gentleman from Maine will understand, of course, that it takes some time to recover from this depression. There is no great interest that can be invaded and crippled in this way without some depression. But, sir, I have as much faith as I have in anything that the enterprise of the American people will remedy this evil as it has remedied similar evils before. We have been a great commercial nation, and we shall continue to be such. I am not prepared as yet to shed any tears over the flags of my country that the gentleman from Mas sachusetts [Mr. ELIOT] thinks will be carried into lofts and stowed away by and by while we mourn over the decadence of the power and glory of the American people. If you will take care of the great interests of the country at home I am willing to let foreign ships struggle for supremacy on the seas and fight the battle in their own way, believing that our flag will triumph there as it has in the great struggle for nationality. I believe I have occupied the time of the House as long as I ought to on this subject. I repeat that my objection to this bill is simply that it undertakes to maintain this one interest by striking at another which is equally important, and we cannot afford to foster one interest by detriment to others of equal importance. I shall be glad to have the burdens of the country equalized, if they are not already equalized, but after the statements on the other side in favor of the bill I am not able to see that it is at all necessary that this measure should be passed. I intended to move as an amendment, before I sat down, to strike out a section of the bill. The SPEAKER. That is not in order; the motion to recommit is pending. Mr. BLAIR. I yield to my colleague, [Mr. DRIGGS.] Mr. DRIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to occupy the attention of the House but a short time, as my time is limited to the brief period yielded to me from his time by my colleague, [Mr. BLAIR,] and as I have promised a portion of that time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MYERS.] I desire to say that I understood my colleague, [Mr. BLAIR,] in reply to Mr. PIKE, of Maine, to say that that gentleman had stated-and which I had also understood him to say-that a very small proportion of the copper used in ship-building was obtained from Lake Superior. That statement, Mr. Speaker, I doubt not is strictly true, aud for the very best reason it is true. The reason, sir, why our native copper is not used is because it has no protection, and these ship: builders find it much more convenient and economical to buy copper produced from foreign ores, the product of penal and cheap labor, brought into the country almost free and thrown into the market in ruinous competition with the production from the mines of Lake Superior and other sections, which are borne down by taxation of every kind to support the Government. If this bill passes, and a drawback is allowed to the ship-builder equal to the duty on foreign copper, it is very doubtful whether even the small proportion of which the gentleman speaks will come from Lake Superior or any other American mines; for it will be utterly impossible for them to compete with the foreign article imported free of duty. I hold in my hand, and will send to the Clerk's desk to be read, a letter from a prominent ship-builder in Maine. This letter, I think, sir, will convince the gentleman, the House, and the country that he does not represent the entire wishes of the ship-builders of the country in urging this drawback of the duty paid on foreign copper. As the letter will show for itself what this intelligent ship-builder thinks of the proposition, I will suspend any further remarks until it is read. The Clerk read as follows: BATH, MAINE, March 21, 1868. SIR: I take the liberty to write you on allowing a drawback on foreign materials used in the construction of vessels, as I am one of those who are opposed to the withdrawal of duties. I have not written our Maine Senators, as they are committed to the friends of that measure. I will briefly state my reasons. In the first place, it would be unjust to those who have invested their money in ships, and the reduction of duties entirely would lessen the value of their property just so much as the drawback would amount to. We have built in the last four years four ships. The duties on the foreign articles in them would be about forty thousand dollars, and we should lose that amount, because the vessels would not sell for so much. Another reason why there should be no encouragement of that kind is that there are more vessels now built, and being built, than are wanted. The cotton crop is not half what it was before the war, when we had four million five hundred thousand bales. Ships will do well enough, and can afford to pay duties. It seems to me nothing can be more suicidal than the course of the friends of this drawback. It would be as though woolen manufacturers, whose interest is depressed, should ask Congress to take the duties from machinery or materials made abroad as a remedy for mills now idle, causing new mills to be built, because cheaper than the old ones. What ship-owners now want is profitable business for the vessels they now have, and then we shall have a healthy, not a hot-house, growth of ship-building, Much complaint has been made of the decrease of American commerce without cause. A large number of vessels were sold during the war, and we got our money for them, and these vessels are now employed mostly in the same business that they would have been employed in under the American_flag; and the cry that our commerce is dying out I think is only raised because many of those who have sold and now have their money in bonds wish to have the privilege of building ships cheaper than their neighbors, and when they can do it they will sell and go to building again. To-day American iron and chains are being used because they can be bought cheaper than the foreign article. Give a drawback, and every article that can be imported will be, and the home manufactures that depend on ships for their sale must stop. To show that shipbuilding is not quite dead there are now preparations being made to build on our river, the Kenuebec, about fifteen ships and barks, averaging about one thousand tons each, and they will be built, duty or no duty; and if we cannot build them here they will be built in other places. The number of ships that will be built in this State the coming year I have no means of knowing, but I think it will be quite large, full enough for the prospect ahead. There was a time when I felt it would be well to have the duties removed, but on reflection I am convinced it will be better for all concerned that the duties remain as they are. L. W. HOUGHTON, of Houghton Brothers. Respectfully, yours, Hon. Z. CHANDLER. Mr. DRIGGS. Mr. Speaker, that letter so fully expresses the whole question, and coming, as it does, from a ship-builder in the State of Maine, the gentleman's [Mr. PIKE] Own State, I shall say no more on the points to which it refers. While, as it has been said by the gentleman who preceded me, iron is protected by a duty of about fifty per cent., copper is only protected by a duty of five per cent. Sir, the people representing this once prosperous and now depressed American copper interest have been here for the last two years praying and begging Congress to save them from utter ruin by the imposition of a small increased duty. They have sent here numerous petitions, more numerous, as I believe, than has been done in reference to any other interest. They do not ask that full protection given to other American productions; they only ask for twenty per cent. This, it is understood, the Committee of Ways and Means is unauimously in favor of giving them, and I earnestly believe the House will be in favor of conceding this eminently just claim as soon as that committee shall report the bill to the House for its action. The gentleman from Maine has stated that a very small amount of copper is used in ship-building. Mr. Speaker, this is either a very careless statement or my information is greatly at fault. I am informed by those who claim to know, and I believe it is true, that at least one third of all the copper used in the United States is for copper bottoms and for other necessary purposes in ship and steamboat building. And I will state another fact for the information of the House, and particularly for the gentleman from Maine, that the State of Michigan not only produces three fourths of all the copper used in the United States, but that it is capable of producing it all, and of exporting with proper protection an equal amount. Besides this, Mr. Speaker, the State of Michigan builds a greater amount of tonnage in ships and steamboats annually than does the State of Maine. But considering the vast national interest of copper they do not desire, any more than did the gentleman whose letter has been read, that one source of ǹational wealth shall be ruined to build up another. In view of all these considerations and facts, it would not only be a manifest wrong, but an extreme cruelty, for this House to pass the bill introduced by the gentleman from Maine, for a drawback of the duties on the copper used in ship-building, and I earnestly trust that the House will not consent to so manifest an injustice, and that the bill will not pass. I regret that I have not more time to urge my objections, and that I must now yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. MYERS. Mr. MYERS. I have very little to say about this bill, but the mention of my name in connection with the debate the other day, and a few facts within my knowledge justify me in saying a few words in regard to it. Petitions are pouring in from all parts of the United States for an increased protection to American manufactures and American labor, and one member after another is presenting those petitions, and yet at this very time, apparentiy in a single interest and with no argument that it will benefit all interests, a bill is introduced very specious upon its face, but absolutely conflicting with all or most of those petitions. I have no objection to the first section of this bill. There is none that I know of. But although I represent a ship-building interest, a district largely engaged in ship-building, there has come to me no voice in behalf of such a measure as this, although it has been published by the papers throughout the country. If any of my constituents who are engaged in ship-building desired such a measure, I believe I should have heard of it. I think that those I represent hold views similar to those expressed in the letter which has just been read at the Clerk's desk. If we could protect one interest without injuring others by this bill, I, for one, should have no objection to it. But, sir, I take it that in the section of country from which the gentleman from Maine [Mr. PIKE] comes there are some persons engaged in manufacturing chains; there are some persons engaged in manufacturing anchors; there are some engaged in manufacturing cordage; yet all those interests are to be stricken down, because as to them this measure is free trade. The drawback allows the ship-builder to import all these articles free of duty; that is, the duties are to be paid, but he gets them back. There are also manufacturers of machines and workers of iron that enters into the construction of vessels, to say nothing of the copper interest so ably represented by my friends from Michigan. Yet of all these interests are to a certain extent to be stricken down, without appearing to do so, by the second section of this bill. If, Mr. Speaker, we may protect the shipbuilding interest in this way, why may not the same reasoning be applied to every other interest in the land which needs the same resuscitation? My district is, to a certain extent, a ship-building district, and the city I in part represent is a commercial city, and while to a certain extent commerce has declined, it has been because of causes beyond our control, because of the war. But, with proper energy and enterprise, such as that displayed at Baltimore, of which my friend from Maryland [Mr. PHELPS] boasted the other day, our vessels will soon sweep across the ocean as they did before. I believe that ships will be built as enterprise is brought forward. I believe that this interest needs no more protection than other interests, and that no ship-builder would care to strike down these other interests merely for the sake of the benefit of the drawback herein provided. What are we asked to do? For the sake of a certain number of ship-builders, in order that they may get their lumber and cordage and chains and anchors and their labor from Canada cheaper than they can now do, this provision is to be put upon the statute-book to the detriment of many other important interests of the country. My friend from Maine, [Mr. PIKE,] in his speech the other day, spoke of our relieving the manufactures of the country. He spoke then of the necessity of passing this bill, though it had not then even been reported to the House. But I suppose he was anxious to speak upon it, and took that opportunity to do so, for fear another opportunity would not present itself. He referred to the fact that we had relieved certain people from taxation, and argued that we should therefore take off the tariff duties upon other articles. Now I want to say a word or two in reply to the gentleman from Maine, and other gentlemen who go with him in favor of this bill, and particularly of the principles contained in this second section. Sir, before we took the tax off manufactures we relieved this ship-building interest by taking off the tax from everything that entered into ship-building. And I was one of the foremost in endeavoring to get that done, offering an amendment for that purpose. In reality we relieved the ship-building interest from taxation before we relieved the other interests. Therefore the argument of the gentleman made at any time is not a good one. That is all I have to say about that. I wish to protect this interest, but I shall vote against this second section. If I cannot succeed in striking that section out I shall very gladly support the amendment of the gentleman from the Johnstown district of Pennsylvania, [Mr. MORRELL.] Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Mr. MYERS. Certainly. I Mr. WASHBURN, of Massachusetts. would ask the gentleman if he is in favor of relieving the industrial interests of the country from the very heavy tariff they have been obliged to pay upon wood-screws, the patents for which we have been asked by the gentleman to extend? [Laughter.] Mr. MYERS. I will answer the gentleman, although his question is not very relevant. Whenever he can show that the industrial interests of the country are unduly taxed in any way I will go with him to relieve them from taxation. And whenever I show him that any measure proposed here is one which will tend to oppress the industrial interests of the country I shall expect him to go with me in opposing it. Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I presume it is hardly necessary to urge upon the attention of this House the great importance, the great national importance, of taking immediately some steps to regain the position which before the rebellion we held as a great maritime Power. The truth of that wise saying of one of England's most sagacious statesmen, "that they who control the commerce of the world control the wealth of the world, and they who control the wealth of the world control the world itself," is, I think, too well appreciated here to need any argument from me to secure recognition. Sir, I take it that it is only necessary to ascertain what measures are needed to restore our lost commerce, and with it our lost advantage in the race for commercial supremacy in order to secure their adoption. While I do not believe in the policy of foreing into existence interests by governmental aid which can never stand alone, and which can only be sustained by the constant and continual support of the Government, I do believe it to be the true policy of every nation to aid, protect, and foster every great national interest that can by such protection and fostering care attain a position where it can sustain itself. That the commercial interest of this country can become self-sustaining would not admit of a doubt, even if the fact had not been demonstrated by actual experience. A country abounding in all the material for the construction of ships, possessing a vast extent of seacoast, indented with the finest bays and harbors to be found in the world, that produces and consumes every article known to commerce, and is inhabited by as hardy and enterprising a race of men as ever peopled any country, has surely all the elements of a great $2,014,508,635 The total foreign commerce at all the ports of the United States at three distinct periods before and since the war was in value, as follows: Years. 1857.. 1860. 1867.. In American vessels. $405,485,462 507,247,757 296,675,185 These tables show that while in 1860 we had engaged in foreign commerce to and from American ports more than double the amount of tonnage employed by all other nations, in 1866 the figures had become reversed, and the foreign tonnage engaged in this trade nearly doubled that of the United States, and that the amount in value of foreign commerce to and from American ports had fallen off in the same proportion. A still more startling proof of the decadence of our influence in the foreign carrying trade is afforded by contrasting the business done by American, British, and French vessels between ports foreign to each class of vessels. In 1853 the American tonnage engaged in this trade was 4,004,013 tons to 3,363,121 British and 854,029 French, nearly as much as both put together. In 1860 the American tonnage was nearly six million to 4,700,000 British and 1,300,000 French, about the same proportion. In 1865 American tonnage had fallen to about three million tons, and that of Great Britain had risen to 7,000,000 tons. The following table from the reports of the Bureau of Statis *In the official tables the American tonnage entering from foreign countries in 1866 is put down at 3,372,060; but this is the new measurement, which would be reduced fifteen per cent. to bring it to the old standard. 112,040,395 .$2,896,142,855 1852.. 139.476,937 70.181,429 75,947,355 84,474,054 71,906,284 1856. 232,295,762 94.669,146 111,745,825 81.153.133 107,171,509 121,039.394 69,372,180 104,517,667 199,880,691 237,442,730 92,554,061 263,303,283 213,671,466 351,754,028 1865... 1866.. Total............ $3,043,444,025 $2,172,773,709 Sir, no language of mine can add force to facts like these. They show conclusively that our foreign commerce has been nearly annihilated by the war in consequence of the inability of the Government to afford it protection. They furnish also a key to the motive that actuated foreign nations, particularly Great * Gold values at foreign place of exportation. + Mixed gold and currency values in United States, mainly currency. Britain, whose commercial rival we had become, in giving aid and comfort to the rebellion. Shall we allow those nations that aided in destroying our commerce to profit by its destruction? or shall we encourage and stimulate its reproduction by enacting wise and liberal measures in regard to it? It is said that every interest in the country should bear its proportion of the public burden; and I fully concur in the general correctness of that proposition. But I submit whether this particular interest which has been crushed almost out of existence by the war, while those other great interests, agriculture and manufactures, have been stimulated and improved thereby, should not be made an exception to this general rule. If an article of American manufacture is taxed, if the raw material which enters into its composition pays an impost duty, the article when manufactured is protected by a duty upon its foreign competitor, which is intended to cover not only these disadvantages, but also the increased cost of American over foreign labor. And now I wish to call the attention of my friend from Pennsylvania [Mr. MYERS] to the difference between the protection this great interest receives, and the protection which is afforded to the manufacturing interests which that gentleman represents. They are protected by the tariff which is put upon those articles that are included in our tax laws. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BLAIR] asked wherein our laws have been changed in regard to this ship-building interest that it now requires protection. I ask that gentleman and the gentleman from Pennsylvania wherein our laws have been changed in regard to the interests they represent? And yet those gentlemen, from the commencement of the war to the present time, have come here and demanded more protection, and we have given it to them. We have advanced the import duties pari passu with and in proportion as we have advanced our internal taxes. laws in regard to the ship-building interest have not been altered to meet the altered condition of affairs, while the laws in regard to manufactures have been so altered. The Let us see how it is with the American shipbuilder. He must build his ship with highpriced labor, and high-priced and high-taxed material; every thing from stem to stern, and from keelson to truck, has paid an excise or an impost duty. And when the ship is launched and ready for business, provisioned with taxed stores and manned with a taxed crew, the foreign ship, built with cheap labor, without a single article which has entered into her construction having paid a tax to the Government, with every article of ship stores exempt from duty, this ship, thus built, manned, and provisioned, hauls alongside of the American ship, at an American port, and enters into free competition with her for all foreign commerce. Is it strange, with this condition of things, that the American flag is fast disappearing from the ocean so far as foreign commerce is concerned? Is not the fact that it has held its own so well against such adverse circumstances conclusive proof that, with reasonable protection from the Government, we should soon regain all we have lost? I would like to ask my friends from Pennsylvania, who are constantly asking for more protection-which I have always been willing they should have how long they think they could stand the competition if it were possible for the Englishman to bring over here his rolling mill and machine-shops with workmen to run them; bringing at the same time provisions and clothing for the workmen; all free of duties or taxes; and then be allowed to sit down beside and enter into free competition with them? This, sir, is just what the English ship-builder is allowed to do in competition with the American ship-builder and ship-owner; and the present bill affords only a partial relief; because in the nature of the case only partial relief can be afforded. There ought to be a provision in the bill under consideration 40TH CONG. 2D SESS.-No. 203. by which an American ship, clearing for a foreign port, should be allowed to take its stores as the English ship does, in bond, free of duty. The disadvantages which we labor under, of higher paid officers and crews to man our ships, is one under which we have always labored, but for which we have been compensated by the superior intelligence and enterprise of our officers and sailors. Το show how rapidly, with reasonable encouragement and protection, our commerce can be restored, we have only to refer to the tables which I have presented, showing the increase of American as compared with foreign tonnage, and to the following table showing the amount of tonnage built each year from 1850 to 1866, inclusive: Mr. ELDRIDGE. With the the gentleman, I would permission of like to make an inquiry. I understood him to say that there is nothing in the materials of which the ship is built that is not taxed. Now, I ask him what there is that any laboring man in the West wears, from the crown of his head to the sole of his feet, or what there is that he uses, that is not taxed for the benefit of the manufacturer? Mr. LYNCH. If the gentleman had listened to my argument he would have seen that I had already anticipated his question. While the late war nearly annihilated American commerce, it protected and stimulated the agricultural and manufacturing interests of the country; and to-day, with all the taxes that are placed on these interests, they are in a more thriving condition than they were before the war. And, let me tell the gentleman further, that by the repeal of the reciprocity treaty we have granted still further protection to the agricultural inter est. Mr. ELDRIDGE. We have borne the taxes which were put on in consequence of the enormous expenses of the war very cheerfully; but why should we have our taxes increased on every article which we consume, while these men ask to be relieved from the taxes imposed on their shipping interest? Mr. LYNCH. I have already answered the gentleman's question, that those interests, notwithstanding the taxes imposed upon them, are, on account of the protection that was afforded and the stimulus given to all these branches of industry by the war, now actually better off than they ever were before, even when they paid no taxes, while the ship-building interest has been almost annihilated by taxation imposed without any compensating advantages, for the reason that you impose a duty upon everything that goes into the construction of the American ship, and then compel that ship to compete with the foreign-built vessel which is entirely exempt from all duties and taxes. There is no analogy in any other interest in the country. I defy the gentleman to point out any. Nowhere in the United States are the products of the foreign agriculturist allowed to compete free from tax or duty with the products of our own farmers; and thus protected by the Government the western farmers, represented by the gentleman from Wisconsin, are enabled to bear their portion of the burdens of supporting the Government. Mr. ELDRIDGE. I agree that the English ship should not be able to come alongside of our wharves, and be free from the taxation that our American ships have to endure. I agree that our ships should not be subject to this tax; but I object and protest against the discrimination the gentleman would make in favor of the ships and against our laboring men. Mr. LYNCH. I do not agree with the gentleman in his free-trade notions, even if he agrees with me on this bill. I am in favor of protecting American labor and industry; but, as I have said before, all the other branches of American industry of which the gentleman speaks are better off to-day, even after paying the taxes, than before the war, because they have been stimulated and protected, while this ship-building interest is the only one which has had no protection, either from destruction during the war or from free competition with these untaxed foreign ships since. Mr. O'NEILL. Will the gentleman allow me a question? Mr. LYNCH. Yes, sir. Mr. O'NEILL. I understand him to say he is in favor of protecting American industry in Is that so? general. Mr. LYNCH. Yes, sir. Mr. O'NEILL. Then, sir, I ask him just to look for one moment to the very practical amendment offered by my colleague, [Mr. MORRELL, and say whether, in carrying out his idea of protecting American industry in general, he cannot vote for that amendment? Mr. LYNCH. My answer to the gentleman is, as I have said before, that those interests are already very well protected by high duties. It is only a very small amount of articles represented by the gentleman that go into the construction of ships and that are proposed to be exempted under this bill. But these gentlemen from Pennsylvania are so grasping in this matter that, notwithstanding all the stimulus that has been given to their interests by the war and by a protective tariff, they are not willing to yield to the great national shipbuilding and ship-owning interests this small pittance that it asks and that it must have in order to live. Mr. O'NEILL rose. Mr. LYNCH. I decline to yield to the gen. tleman from Pennsylvania any further. Mr. O'NEILL. Only one word. Mr. LYNCH. I cannot yield. Mr. O'NEILL. I wish merely to ask a question. Mr. LYNCH. I will answer a question. Mr. O'NEILL. I want the gentleman from Maine to answer me a question, and it is this: he speaks of the grasping of Pennsylvania after protection for all of her interests. Why, sir, Pennsylvania had to come here in the broad light of day and run her chances in a general tariff bill, and not by injecting into a bill, referring to some special interests, a few lines to do away with protective duties on many imported articles. Mr. LYNCH. My answer to the gentleman is this: when the provisions of the drawback section of this bill were incorporated into the tariff bill in the last Congress and passed the Senate, these gentlemen from Pennsylvania came forward and demanded that it should be struck out. It was, in the Committee of Ways and Means, stricken out of that bill because of their opposition, and that is the reason why we are now obliged to bring it in by a special bill. It is because we cannot get in the general legislation the protection we need, on account of the gentleman and those who act with him. Mr. O'NEILL rose. Mr. LYNCH. I decline to yield further. Now, I wish to say a word in reference to another Pennsylvania interest which came here when we had a reciprocity treaty, which allowed us to bring coal from Nova Scotia free of duty. But a small quantity of that coal the statistics proved ever found a market west of New York, while but a very small quantity of the bituminous coal of Pennsylvania ever went east of New York. Yet, sir, these gentlemen come here and insisted that coal should have a high rate of duty put upon it, when it afforded no protection to them, because this Nova Scotia coal found its market principally east of New York and all the bituminous coal of Pennsylvania south of New York; so that they did not come into competition. Yet they came here and had a tax put upon that Nova Scotia coal, taxing New England manufacturers without deriving any advantage by way of protection to their bituminous coal. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me resume the course of my argument and recall attention to the table which I introduced just before I was interrupted by the gentleman from Wisconsin. A careful examination of that table will show that although we built nearly as much tonnage in some years during the war as before, it was mostly of a class suited to the internal navigation of the country, schooners, sloops, canal boats, and steamers, while the tonnage of the class suited to our sea-coast and foreign commerce, ships, barks, and brigs, built in that period, was comparatively small. Now, sir, in order to restore our commerce we have to do something more than to lift from it the burdens which the war left imposed upon it. This interest has been crushed. It must be revived. Before the war it had no protection, enjoyed no exemption, and yet it grew and flourished. Revive it, build it up, place it on something like an equal footing with its foreign competitor, and it will again grow and flourish, increasing the wealth and power of the nation. 66 We are told by some that we should repeal our navigation laws, and buy instead of building our ships. The nation that builds ships owns them. If England builds our ships she will own them as she now owns nearly all the ocean steamers that do our carrying trade. But why should we buy ships when we have such facilities for building them that we can, as experience has proved, compete successfully with Great Britain and every other foreign nation in the carrying trade of the world. Are gentlemen willing to say to the American shipbuilder, You must pay an import duty on all the raw materials that enter into the construc tion of your ships, and build them with taxed labor, while the same materials, after having been wrought up into a ship in a foreign country, with foreign labor, may be admitted duty free. Do gentlemen seriously propose this discrimination against American labor and American capital? Great Britain allows her citizens to purchase and register foreign-built vessels; but she adopted that policy only after she had made her navigation interest strong by protecting it and relieving it of every burden of taxation. While she admits the free importation and registry of foreign ships, she admits free of duty every article which enters into the construction of her own ships. Give the American ship-builder ten years of such protection as the English ship-builder has enjoyed, and you may then admit foreign ships to American registry free, and he will not only protect himself but will drive the foreign ship-builder out of his own market. I wish to say a word in reply to the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. GARFIELD,] who asked if the introduction of steam navigation did not account for the falling off of our tonnage; this falling off being in consequence of the greater capacity and speed of steamers over sailing vessels. Does not the gentleman know that the whole ocean steam navigation is in the hands of foreigners? We have not a single line of steamships running in or out of an American port to or from any foreign port. Mr. RANDALL. How does the gentleman propose to correct that? Mr. LYNCH. By the passage of this bill as one of the measures, and I hope I shall have the gentleman's vote in its favor. I am informed by a gentleman near me that there is a line of steamers running out of Baltimore. Those steamers were built abroad and sail not under the stars and stripes but under the union-jack. Mr. HOOPER, of Massachusetts. There is a line from California to Japan. Mr. LYNCH. The gentleman says that there is a line from California to China and Japan. That may be the case. I think there is such a line, sustained by a large Government subsidy; but the gentleman very well knows that there was an attempted line from Boston to Liverpool, and that those vessels after two or three trips have come under the auctioneer's hammer, because they could not be sustained, being high-priced ships, with high-priced labor and high-priced provisious, while to their English competitors those articles have been free. Mr. Speaker, a few days since there stood at the bar of this House the embassy of one of the oldest and most populous nations of the world. The chief and spokesman of that embassy claimed for the people of that nation the virtues of temperance, frugality, and industry, and a high cultivation and scientific attainments, and boasted that it could command the services of eighty million fighting men. And yet, sir, that great nation, great in its internal resources, in the extent of its territory, and in population, is scarcely a recognized Power among the nations of the world. While that nation from which we derive our origin, that little sea-girt isle which makes but a dot on the map of the world, with a commerce whitening every sea, has planted her flag in every quarter of the globe and laid the world under contribution to her aggran dizement. Sir, the commercial greatness of England is the result of no lucky accident, but of sagacious statesmanship and wise legislation. The historian attributes it to the navigation laws passed by Cromwell's Parliament more than two centuries ago. May the future historian, be able to comment upon the commercial great ness, commercial supremacy, of our own coun try two centuries hence, and trace the source of that greatness, in part at least, back to the wise legislation of this Fortieth Congress, which has by its enemies been likened to that long Parliament of Cromwell. I yield now to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. BROOKS.] Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I do not in tend to say anything here upon the subject of the tariff upon copper or iron, but I shall ask the attention of the House, in the first place, to the necessity of protecting the shipping and commerce of the country. There are three great, prominent interests in all countries: commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing. Without dwelling upon which is the first of them, or attempting to classify them, it is admitted upon all sides that these are the three great interests; and although our agriculture and our manufacturing are in a high degree of prosperity, yet it is a fact that there is not now crossing the ocean under the American flag a single steamer, unless it be a small and ragged line running occasionally from the city of New York, and an American line running from California to China and Japan, created and protected solely by the generosity of this Congress and sustained by a large bounty from the Government, without which it would be unable for a single hour to sustain our flag upon the ocean against the competition of France or of England. Throughout all time and in all countries and in all periods of the world it has been the ambition of every nation first to protect its flag and to protect its commerce. Unless a nation is strong upon the sea, unless she presents a bold exterior front to all foreign nations, unless her harbors and rivers are protected by her navy, unless her flag floats in triumph over the ocean, no matter what may be her power on land-even though she have eighty million men in arms like China-yet she is a weak and powerless nation if she be without a wide and well protected commerce on the seas. This, as has been said by the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. LYNCH,] is the history of the British nation. It rose from an insignificant Power occupying a little island in the ocean, without authority or dominion, to the conquer. ing and subjugation almost of the whole world to its flag. It first rose from that insignificance purely and solely by the influence of its navigation laws. Those laws monopolized for English commerce its coastwise trade and forced its manufactures, its imports, and its exports into its own bottoms under its own flag. Those wise laws of Cromwell were maintained and defended throughout all time till Britain obtained the mastery of the seas by which she achieved her power. And hitherto it has been our policy in this country, in like manner, to protect our flag. For that purpose we have secured to our commerce, against all foreign intervention, the whole coastwise trade of this country. No vessel under the British, French, or Danish flag can leave New York and go around Cape Horn to California or anywhere on the Pacific coast. There is no interference in that trade on the part of foreigners, because, in imitation of the laws of England, we have preserved to our own people the control and domination of our own coast trade under our own flag. For this purpose we have erected light-houses along our coasts and given bounties to our sailors. For this purpose, for the protection of our fisheries mainly as a nursery for seamen, we have once, if not twice, gone to war with the strongest Power in the world. But we have now arrived at a new period in our history. We are now unable to compete with foreigners hardly out of sight of our own harbors, except as we have the monopolizing protection of our own coastwise laws. No American flag over an American steamer can now float upon the ocean, unless protected by an American bounty, in competition with steamers under British or French flags. It is a mortifying spectacle, to be daily and hourly witnessed in New York, of the flags of Eng land, France, and the nations of the north of Europe floating over ships that bring our own people and our own commerce and trade from abroad to our own ports, while they are reaping all the profits of that carrying trade. Mr. HIGBY. Will the gentleman say how he would help that; whether by subsidies, or by taking the tariff duties off these articles? Mr. BROOKS. I will reach that presently. Mr. ELDRIDGE. If the gentleman will allow me, I would like to ask him why it is that the English are able to build ships so much cheaper than we can? Mr. BROOKS. The gentleman is roguish and mischievous, and wants to involve me in a discussion of the tariff question. I will not answer him just now. The system of drawbacks proposed by this bill is nothing new in the history of our com merce. The manufacturers of New England now have on their cotton goods exported just what the ship-builders of Maine are asking, a drawback upon those articles upon which |