Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Speaker, at this late hour of the session, and after the protracted discussion in which so many gentlemen have engaged, I would not furthertrespass upon the patience of the House but for the fact that this bill has been so gravely misrepresented here and so unjustly assailed from without that there has been raised no small clamor against it for iniquities which it does not contain and for omissions which have not been made. not the time to enterinto any elaborate discussion of those general principles which under lie the niost complicated of financial subjects, the trade between the U.S and other nations. The abstract theories of free trade and protection, as laid down in the books, can‘be of little practical value in the consideration of this bill. The disciples of either school would be puzzled to apply their doctrines to the present situation of our trade and commerce, as has been strikingly illustrated during the progress of this do bate. There is scarcely a free trader on this floor who has ndt, since this discussion began, in order to secure a higher duty on some prod uct in which his constituents were interested, made use of arguments and doctrines which met the hearty approval of the most extreme protectionists; and, on the other hand, when these same protectionists have been desirous of bringing into this country some article important to their people, we have heard them again and again detend their propositions by declarations which would bring down thunders of applause from an audience of free trade leaguers. There are 2 extremes of opinion in this House and in the country to which I cannot assent. During the past year I have been frefluently solicited to subscribe publicly to the ogmas of various organizations based on opposite and extreme doctrines in relation to our financial policy; but.l have steadily declined to do so, partly for the reason that I could not assent to all their articles of faith, and partly because Ipret'crred to approach the question on which we were to legislate untrammeled by any abstract theory, which, apparently sound, might be impracticable when applied to the facts of our situation. I would not be misun derstood, nor for any political advantage to myself personally would I allow my constitucuts to suppose that I indorsed any doctrines which, though they should be pleasing to, many of them, do not meet with my own convictions of truth and duty. If to be a protectionist is to adopt the practice which characterized the legislation of GreatBritain and the leading nations of Europe for more than 200 years, and which is now commended to us by some of our political philosophers and statesmen, then I am no protectionist and shall uever be one. Ifto be a protectionist is to base our legislation upon the policy which led the Parliament of GreatBritain from the days of Elizabeth to Charles H to forbid the exportation of sheep and wool from the kingdom under penalty of confiscation and imprisonment for the 1st offense, and torture and death for the 2nd; which led the same Parliament in 1678 to pass a law entitled “An act for the encouragement of woolen manufactures, ” which ordered that every corpse should be buried in a woolen shroud; a policy which led the Lord Chancellor to declare the necessity of going to war with Holland because the commerce of the Dutch was surpassing that of GreatBritain; which led the diplomatists of England to insist in an article in the treaty of Utrecht of 1713, in accordance with which the finest harbor in northern Europe was filled up and hopelessly ruined, lest by its aid the trade of France should eclipse that of England; a policy which tortured industr in every imagi nable way, and ignored all the great laws of value, of exchange, and of industrial growth; which cost England her North American col. onies and plunged Europe into more wars during the 17th and 18th centuries than all other causes combined if to he a protectionist means this, or anything fairly akin to this, then, I repeat, I am no protectionist. That policy softened down in This is its outward manifestations, but essentially the same in spirit, is urged upon us now by those who would have us place so high a duty upon foreign merchandise as to prohibit the importation of any article which this country produces or can produce. Besides lacing ourselves in an attitude of perpetual) hostility to other nations, and greatly reducing our currying trade, we should make monopolists of all the leading manufacturers of this country, who could fix the price of all their products at their discretion. If, on the other hand, we should adopt the theories of the radical free trader, and declare that our tariff shall be only for revenue, and nothing for protection, and, particularly were that doctrine to be put in practice at such a time as in 1836, when we had no debt, and a (large surplus in the Treasury to be given away, no one can fail to see that we should break down the dikes which our predecessors have erected for the defense of American industry, and should destroy or seriously cripple our manufacturing industry, which produces nearly 1/2 the annual income of our people,(for the p manufactured products of this country in 1860 were valued at $1, 900,000,000,) we should revolutionize our industrial system, and place our selves at the mercy of foreign manufacturers. Let either of these parties frame the tariff, and the result will be calamitous in the highest degree. if to be a free trader means all this, and pledges us to let the competition of the world come in upon our people, and thus to disjoint and derange the industrial system of the U.S., then I am no free trader and can never be. One of the worst features in our industrial system is the irregularity and uncertainty of the legislation in reference to the tar iff. It subjects the business of manufacturin to the uncertainty of a lottery investment. It the prohibitionists succeed one year the profits of manufacturers are enormous. If, as is quite probable, the reaction of the next yey uts free traders in power, the lesses are equal y great. What, then, is the point of stable equilibrium where we can balance these great industries with the most reasonable hope of permanence? We have seen that one extreme school of econ omists would place the price of all manufactured articles in the hands offoreign producers, by rendering it impossible for our manufacturers to compete with them, while the other extreme school, by making it impossible for the foreigner to sell his competing wares in our market, would have no check upon the prices which our manufacturers might tix upon their products. I hold, therefore, that a properly adjusted competition between home and for eign products is the best gauge by which to regulate international trade. Duties should be so high that our manufacturers can fairly compete with the foreign product, but not so high as to enable them to rive out the foreign article, enjoy a monopoly of the trade and regulate the price as they please. To this extent I am a protectionist. It our Government pursues this line of policy steadily we shall year by year approach more nearly to the basis of free trade, because we shall be more nearl able to compete with other nations on equa terms. I am for a protection which leads to ultimate free trade. I am for that free trade which can only be achieved through protection. I desire to call attention briefly to some of the fallacies and misrepresentations by which this bill has been assailed. In the 1st place it has been stated again and again that this is a NewEngland measure, and repeated attempt; have been made to arouse sectional jealousy based on that allegation. I affirm that this is not a NewEngland measure, but more than any tariff ever framed by Congress it protects and aids the agricultural interests of the country. If there has ever been an agricultural tariff this is one. Look at its provisions.' On the subject of wools it is proposed to increase the duty on foreign competing wools from 6 cents perpound to ten cents perpound, and ten per why before I am done. cent. advalorem, making the total tariff about 11 and a half cents perpound on foreign wool. It takes 2 pounds of the mesiiza wool of Smith America to equal one pound of our American wool. It is therefore protection of 23 cents perpound on American wool of the liner qualities, which comprise the great bulk of our wool. Now, there is grown in the U.S. 100 million pounds of wool perannum, and yet the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. Kassox] tells us that in consequence of the peculiarity of the climate and soil of South America we can never comete with that country in the product of wool. n the same short speech the gentleman confuted himself by declaring that wool growing was so profitable in Iowa thlt it did not need protection.