Mr. DELANO next addressed the House. [His remarks will be found in the Appendix.] Mr. DELANO said: mr. Speaker: I do not rise for the purpose of discussing the details of the bill before the House nor with a view of entering into a general discussion of the questions of revenue and finance that are connected with it. But, as I desire the passage of this bill, whatever may be its perfections or imperfections, and as I am of opinion that all those whose interests are identified with interests like my n ought to support this bill, I have felt at liberty to offer to the House a few observations. I know, very well, that I may say of this taritf bill, truthfully, that it is not all it should he; that it is not all that the committee who brought it forward desire to have it; that it is not acce table to every interest which it affects. And Ppresume that this much might be truthfully said of every revenue bill of the same kind that has ever been introduced or thaLis ever likely to be introduced into this or any other legislative body. And while I say this, I must add that I have no doubt, with all respect for the coinmittee who have may tured this bill and brought it forward, that it mightbe materially improved. I have no doubt the laborious, vigilant, and diligent committee themselves entertain a similar opinion. I know how dilIicult it is to enter upon the question of taxation in any of the forms of legislation so as to meet justly and equitably all the interests that are affected by the measure. One of the most diflicult subjects of legislation is this question of taxation in all its forms. While, therefore. I admit the imperfections of this bill, whileI feel that it is subject to easy amendment and improvement, at I feel that with all these imperfections an with all the opportunities for improvement, the bill, as it comes before us, ought to pass rather than be rejected. I oughtto sayhere, for myself, upon this question, at least thatmy constituents may know my views, that I am not for a prohibitory tariff nor fora tariff for protection merely and never have been; neither do I favor a tariff simply for revenuc, and1lever have, although I have been for protectionb means of a taritfwhencver our finances have emanded revenue from import duties ever since I have participated in public affairs. As I said a few days since, when the question of imposing a duty on salt was under consideration, the finances of our country demand of us the collection of taxes by means of import duties at the present time, and were I called upon myselfto prepare a revenue bill my 1st effort would be to ascertain how much duty ought to be collected; how much the finances of the Government required us to collect by means of imposts, an having settled that question, I would look over the interests of the country and see how this amount of revenuc could be distributed pith the nearest apronch to justice, and with the greatest equality to all the great interests of the nation; and then, 3rd ly, I would inquire how this can be done and atford the most judicious protection to the industry, labor, an skill oft ic U.S. I mean not simply the industry of the mechanic; I mean the industry of the agriculturist. And I mean not alone the industry of the mechanic and the agi iculturist, but of the miner all the interests of labor in the land; I make no discrimination at all. The past history of our country admonishes us that the days of American prosperity have been during periods of protection to American industry, an that our days of adversity, of bankruptcy and financial distress, have been during periods of non-protection, when low tariffs, or horizontal tariffs, and other free trade experiments, were being made. Free trade, sir, will answer, perhaps, if it is free. But there is no nation on earth with whom we have important commercial intercourse that adopts this principle. How has England obtained so strong ii‘position for her manufacturing interests? by, sir, by protection, pro tection which she did not. relax until this interest had become.so strong, so experienced, so self sustaining and powerful as not to require it. Free trade, in my opinion, if adopted now, will bring this nation to early bankruptcy and financial ruin. It will impose upon our people such burdens, from direct taxation, as cannot be endured. Meantime it will flood our country with the products of other nations; and to pay for these products we must ultimately export gold. Iecannot always pay in bonds, and with all branches ofindustry paralyzed we sh I“ soon have nothing left to export save our]‘foClOUS metals. Sir, the gold mountains of the West will prove inadequate to the task of paying our foreign debt if we are uilty of the suicidal policy of destroying all domestic industry by this delusive cry of free trade. I often think, sir, that the money of the foreign manufacturer, added to the prejudice and‘aui mosity engendered by party strife, constitute the principal aliment for the sustenance of the theory of free trade. The bill now before the House does not al together ineet my own views in reference to the theOry or the manner in which a revenue Ibill should be framed. But, sir, I am for it. think there is a class of personsin this House whose interests are with mine, who show some si mi of iving way and goin against this hi I, but who ought, like mysel, to be for it. It is for their cars that I venture, not with the expectation of convincing them, but for their attention, nevertheless, a few remarks. There is another class of persons, those not directly interested with me, those. perhaps, who are interested adverscl, but who have consented to or have arrange and agreed upon the main features of this bill, and who, I think now, not. only in this House but out of it, ought to stand up to that arrangement and not start the hue and cry against the bill out of the House or in the House after they have signified their assent to it. I do not mean that this opposition is started in the House, but I do fear that some parties who have consented to this ar mngement are not, out of the House, living up in good faith to the compromises that have been made. Within all m recollections of public events this is the 1st ill that has ever been brought before Congress that did justly protect, or that approached anything like just protection to the agricultural interest of the land. Hitherto it has seemed that, in the course of legislation, there was no protection to be given to the man who labored on the soil, and brought things out of the soil, and made wealth in the production of the raw material, but it. was to be given to him only who.wrought it out and converted it into fabrics. The day has gone by when this discrimination should be made. 'I he hour has come, and I wish to say it to members of this House, that those who represent that great interest of producing the raw material must and will be fairly heard and fairly represented in this matter, and it is for that interest that I speak. I know how difficult it has been to bring this interest before Congress. Capital engaged in manufactures is combined and consolidated. Its influence can be condensed and brought to bear upon legislation, but in the case of agriculture it is diversified, scattered, and spread abroad over the nation; it cannot be concen trated. And hence concentrated capital has made itself powerful and great and mighty for protection. The interests of agriculture have been neglected, because they have not been represented. The day has come when it must be seen by statesmen how important these agricultural interests are, and fiow they demand just, proper, equal protection at the hands of the national Legislature. It is because this is the 1st bill that has ever proposed justice to this interest that I will go or it, an thus, if poossible, place agricultural interests on an equal oting wtth other interests and among the other interests that are protected, so that when the tariff has to be modified and reformed, asI have no doubt it will in time have to be, the interest for which I speak may have avoice and a hearing in the reformation and correction and in the proper adjustment of the revenue question. Are we to forget, gentlemen, have we not in the whole history of our legislation in America forgotten, that one of the great pillars upon which our country rests is agriculture? I ask you, where would be your commerce and where your manufactures were it not that you were furnished with material for their sustenance and support by those who plow the earth and cause it to bear fruit and grain and materials for your use? I ask you if the time has not come when this interest deserves and has a right to receive at your hands a fair and equal protection with other interests in the adjustment of your reve nue laws. Now, sir, I do not propose, as I have before said, to discuss the (firmils of this bill. I concede that there are many things in it that are imperfect. But I assert that it does protect the agricultural interest, and will bring that interest somewhat upon a level with the other interests of the nation in the future adj ustment of our revenue laws. No sooner was this bill placed before congress than the free trade howl began all over the land; and I am sorry that I was compelled, to hear a voice from Massachusetts in the other end of this Capitol sayiu that NewEngland did not want tiis bill. f do not pretend to intimate that there are any gentlemen in this House who have sanctioned that cry. But the voice came from Massachusetts that NewEng land does not want this bill; and why? I can look at the facts and see the reason why she may not want it. Although this bill largely advances the protection upon manufactures, it also uts protection upon the raw material for which she has had heretofore the markets of the world in which to seek supplies, and often without duties; and perhaps NewEngland would prefer, or the gentleman who sounded this key note would pref, to stand by the law giving protection to Mgsachnsetts as it is, without any protection to agriculture, rather than advance the protection on manufactures apd place agricultural protection along side 0 it.