Mr. HENDERSON. As a member of the select committee that recommended this appropriation, I desire to state very bricflyt e reasons for it. I shall vote for this appropriation very cheerfully, not with a view of aiding and assisting the rebels or those men who fired on the steamers in 1861, because I apprehend that I was as much opposed to those men as the honorable Senfrom Illinois or any other person. I believe that the power to make this appropriation is ample. do not doubt it. I did not doubt the power to make an appropriation to kec from starvation the whites and the blacks o the southern States, and I voted for the bill appropriating money for that purpose. I regret very much that when an appropriation is asked for a purpose which is proper within itself we find many gentlemen suggesting that our Government is too limited to make it. I regret vcry much that often times when we desire power to do that which is absolutely necessary for the protection of the Government itself, as has occurred repeat edly within the lasttive or 6 years, gentlemen can find no authority whatever to even save the life of the Government. There is nothing of that sort here; the life of the Government is not in danger whether this appropriation be made or be not made; and I appreciate the force of the argument made against it, that as a general thing it is an‘exceedingly bad policy to make such appropriations, and I 0 not think I would ever make another one likeit. But what are the circumstances now? perhaps similar circumstances will never exist am. The Senfrom Illinois mistakes when he supposes that this appropriation is exclusivel for the benefit of disoyal men. Iaprehen that he will find thatamajority o the men who will cultivate cotton the next ear in the protected region will not be disloya but loyal men, and a majority of the man who will cul tivate sugar in the protected region will be loyal and not disloya men. But, sir, I apprehend that that makes but little difference; I apprehend that that does not affect the question of power; and I doubt whether it a 'ectsv the question of expediency. at have we done during this session of Concress? I stood here protesting against it, but how many votes did get? The honorable Senfrom Illinois did not give me his. I protested that it was bad policy to levy a tax of 3 cents a ound on raw cotton, but it carried. Now, will the Senfrom llli nois, or any other Senator, tell me whether there is a tax levied upon the agricultural reductions of nny other section of the fnion? 5 any other agricultural production lilXlfll but cotton 7 That is the only one. Why was that tax levied?Ileave to honorable Senators to determine for themselves. We have the report of at least one Union officer, who has carefully investigated this matter, who tells us that Without this protection there will be a failure to grow 600,000 bales of cotton next year. We know that no cotton has been grown this year in the regon attain ted to be protected by this appropriation, an there can lie none next year an css this protection is given. How is it to be done? nlcss we do it, it will not be done at all. Now, how much taxes should we collect from 600,000 bales of cotton? A tax of 3 cents a ound is $13 50 a bale. 13 dollars an a half a bale upon 600,000 bales of cotton would give us a revenue next year of $8, 100,000 from the article of cotton, which cannot be grown unless this appropriation is made. 'I he honorable Senator may sa, “They are rebels anyhow, and we will made them pay taxes whether they are represented here or not.” Senators know that I am in no hurry about their being represented, but when I undertake in the absence of the representatives of those men to impose a tax of $8,000,000 upon them, I think I can very consistently make an appropriation of $1,500,000 here asked. But is that all '1 Let me ask the honorable Senator if he proposes to levy any tax upon the sugar cane grown upon the soil of Illinois? None whatever. “it: know that the sugar manufactured from the Chinese cane is free of taxes, every species of it. There is no tax levied except upon the sugar cane grown exelnsively in the southern States. How much shall we realize from that? Those officers who have examined this country say that the entire sugar section of Louisiana cannot now be cultivated. Senators know that every acre of it has been submerged this summer, to the utter destruction of the sugar crop. We shall not grow onc dollar’s worth of sugar in the submerged region of Louisiana this year. Now, turn to the census of 1860 and sechoiv much sugar was grown in that country. I find that there were 241,000 hogsheads of sugar in 1800 grown in this protected region west of the Mississippi river in the State of Louisiana. Not one hogshead of that has been grown this year on account of the overflow of the river. That production of sugar would give us a tax of $2, 410,000 at one cent a pound, which is the tax we levy by our internalrevenue act; and remember thereis no tax on any other sugarcane except that grown in the South. If we can realize 241,000 ho sheads of sugar next year, we get a tax under our excise bill of $2.4l0.000. But that is not all. I found upon examination of the census that 317,000 barrels of molasses was raised in this submerged country in Louisiana in 1800.