Mr. HENDERSON. Will you tell me the reason for that? Have we not taken the internal taxes off iron in almost every instance? We have certainly decreased the excise tax on the manufacturers of iron in almost every case, and at we have a tariff bill increasing largely the duty upon iron and all its manufactures. Our NewEngland friends, some years ago, found much joy in a high tariff, because it always tended to protect manufactures, and manufactures were almost exclusively confined to that land ofingenuity and enter rise for which I have always given them cre it. I, like the Senfrom Ohio, desire exceedingly that my own State shall become a manufacturing State. I should be glad to make itas much so as the State of Ohio. But, sir, the manufactures of Ohio do not need the encouragement that the Senator is asking for in this bill. He has referred to the corn that we are burning for fuel in our section of country. Why is it that we have no sale for it? Can we export articles to other countries and expect other countries to pay for them unless we uy something from tfiose countries? We are not yet exactly prepared to begin manufacturing to such an extent in the West. We want a mar ket for our wheat; we want a market for our corn; we want a market for the 1000s of agricultural productions that we have in the “rest for which we can get no market in this country. Will the Senfrom Ohio impose a high tariff duty 0n corn in order to protect the western farmer? What good would it do? If you levy duties sufficient to enable the constituents of my friendfrom Iowa and my constituents to enter upon manufacturing what will be the result? lIt will be a bonus to the manufacturers of the State of Ohio, at least until we can get under headway in our section, and it takes a long time. I have no aversion to protection. I am very glad to give it where I can do it with justiccto every section of the country. I am not opposed to building up the manufactures of this country. On the other hand, I am in favor of doing it; and inasmuch as during this session of Congress we have decreased the internal taxes so largely and made a great many articles free that we formerly taxed, I ask, in the name of sense, wh is it necessary just now to increase the tari? The excuse in former 'years, ever since 1862, has been that we were increasing the excise tax, and therefore must increase the tariff. Now that excuse is gone, and the only argument left is the cogent one presented by my friendfrom Ohio. Mr. President, as I before stated, that is not the point to begin at. Unless We can make it so as to have exchanges regular between Europe and this country we shall never get rid of these excessive importations; they will continue on our hands, and raising the tariff with a view to decrease importations and save the gold in this country will amount to nothing. ‘40 millions of gold have gone from our country within a few months past, perhaps 50 millions since the 1st of January, and not less than 35 millions within the last 6 or 7 weeks since the panic in Europe in commercial and financial matters. Why is that? There is adouble reason for it. One reason is that they have hurried goods upon us; they wanted to get rid of goods in Europe, and they have forced them upon the market at as low rates as they could possibly afford to sell them. The desire there was to get rid of property because a war was threatened, and they forced goods upon as. Another reason is that our bonds have been driven back upon us and coin called forto go abroad. But another thing, and the chief omt, is what I have already sug ested, th t the war in Europe necessarily increased the price of old in this country, and that in itself induce individuals to im ort, because men who at the beginning of these troubles bought gold in the gold room at NewYork, feeling certain that gold would rise in consequence of European troubles, also felt certain that goods would rise in this in consequence of the increased price ocfougenlt?. What has been the result? Some time ago a merchant could buy exchange when gold was at 20 5%. premium, for about 10%. added to that, making 135 for exchange on London. How is it now? That same exchange is worth 160. Of course, therefore, a merchant can sell goods which he bought at 135 for 160, besides the usual% age that he adds upon his transactions. That, of course, tends to enrich him, but what is the result upon the general interests of the country? Just in proportion as the importer is enriched, just in that proportion does the country at large lose, and just in that proortion is financial difficulty brought upon I. e whole country. We do not get rid of these difficulties by iu creasing the tariff; and I now prophesy, as I did in 1863 when a proosition was made here to increase the tariff, that if you increase the present tariff your importations next year, uness we can in some way curtail our excessive and redundant circulation, will in all proba bility exceed what they were last year. When the present tariff was proposed what did our financial men tell us? They said it would produce a revenue of 70 or 80 millions. It has produced to the government $170,000,000.