Mr. MCDOUGALL. I do not choose to give my vote on this question without the exPression of an opinion. This whole bill, in my best judgment, does not improve past legislation. this my opinion that we should return again to the system which treats equally all depts of the industry of the country. I made a little mistake this morning in the vote which I cast upon an amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts, but I discovered my mistake in time to correct it. He proposed to give a special privilege to NewEngland to bring down coal from the British colonies. I believe about all State; as well as for mine as for the State which is distinguished by the gentleman who is now temporarily Presiding [Mr. HENDRicks in the chair] as well as for all the States. Special legislation is an evil. Why should we legislate for NewEngland as against Iowa? Why should we make distinctions as against or for California? Why should we discriminate in legislation for or against Oregon, or any other part of the U.S.? Special legislation is the evil of the day, and until we can again return to the old policy of legislation for revenue we cannot have much harmony on this subject of taxing imports. My opinion is that we should return to that policy as soon as and that this extra, particular, special legislation is all wrong. I believe that we should approximate free trade as soon as we can consistent with the interests of the Government, and that would bring us down again to the tariff of 1846, as near as can b;e for I believe that the then SecyTreasury organized a revenue system better than has been organized since, and I think it should be returned to now. We are not required to make those great demands upon the resources of the country. Why ". o. legislate against foreign commerce 7 Sir, commerce is the hand maid of civilization, has been for ages, and should not be restrained and prevented by putting a Chinese wall around our country as there is about China. As near as we can afford to have commerce free it should be free. But, sir, this measure as it stands is against the whole law of progress, as it is understood in GreatBritain, as it is understood in France as it is understood even in Belgium, a mali State, as it is understood in every civilized foreign country. This legislation is against the whole law of progress, as laid down by every prudent legislator and high thinker of the last century. We should make our charges on foreign commerce upon a revenue basis; and the sooner it is perfectly free the richer we shall become. Why? The reason has been stated so often that I dare not even repeat it. It has been published, printed, and recorded by the great men of many States and the great inen. our own country. That we do not understand it is a great fault, and it is because the subject is not carefully inquired into by those among us who undertake the high office of legislation. When they have studied and inquired into this they may improve. Perhaps the evil may be this: we are a new country; we have not passed through many centuries; we have not studied the institutions of other nations; in our busy life we have not had leis ure to inquire into those laws that govern the condition of States and the necessities of their prosperity. I do not affirm free trade absolutely, because we are a concrete people, and we cannot exist yet in the abstract. In the abstract free trade is a truth. All students of the science of government and its policy know it. An approximation to it is demanded of us. If we cannot approximate to that we shall approximate to the other extreme; and the other extreme, in my judgment, leads to chaos. I have made these remarks simply in order to give exPression to my views as to what is the true policy in regard to the question before the Senate.