Mr. HENDRICKS. The Senator calls my attention to a fact which I had overlooked, that, gold is taxed. Gold is hardly an agricultural production. I thoughtitunwise to impose any tax a on gold. I thought it was the policy of the (rovernment in bur present condition to encourage the production of gold, and so spoke and so voted in the Senate when that tax was 1st imposed. this present year. I ask Senators wh cotton is selected as an. object of taxation. this the only agricultural 1 product that is taxed before any value is added l to it by labor. Is it because it is aproduction, of the southern States? I am sure Senators l will not admit that this taxis im osed as a l penalty upon the people of the Scot. A rev 1 enue system must. lie imposed without reference P to preJudice or sectional dislike. It must be l justtoall the interests of the country. But, sir, as a northern man, I believe that the northern people are interestedin the production of cotton toaver large extentin order to restore the bath I once 0 trade in our favor with Europe. interest was never in such an embarrassedand depressed condition as it is in atthis very hour. Nature seems to have been against it during In large portions of the South the seed was found to be unlit for planting, and in man localities the crop will failon that account. a other and in very large and desirable localities the rivers have broken from their boundaries, and have llooded whole sections of the country, so that no crop will be produced. And now, when the people of the southern States are scarcely able to culti vate the land at all; when nature has joined with their poverty to prevent the production ofacrop; when the balance of trade is against us; when we need to send 100s of 1,000s of bales across the ocean to restore the balance of trade in our favor, at.this period it is proposed, when we are reducing taxation upon other articles, to increase by 50%. the tax upon cotton. 1 cannot understand the statesmunship or the policy that for one moment will allow such legislation.‘ I presume that we are to be answered during the'latter part of this week from the House of Representaeives on this subject of the balance of trade. ur productions have been cut oil"; much of the labor of the country for the past 5 years has been called into the Army; the lands of the country have not responded with their abundant crops during those live years as in past years; the balance of trade is largely against us; and now Congress is to depress the most important interest, which we ought to encourage, and we are to be told in the latter part of this week, I presume, that we shall restore the balance of trade in our favor by cutting otf arbitrarily and by n prohibitory tariTT anyimportations from abroad. To strike down that interest in our own country which will restore trade, which will place our interests as they should be in our commercial relations with foreign countries, and instead of that policy, prohibit importations from abroad, and make the agricultural interest of this country wholly deeadent upon the manufacturing interests fort eir supplies this is the policy that is to be carried out at this Congress. I do not know whether the western country will quietly agree to it. I see that western gentlemen give it their support. I suppose this pol icy is to receive the support 0 western gentlemen. I suppose the tariff that is to come in here, which is a part of the system of which this bill is a part, will receive the support of western gentlemen. For one, sir, I shall vote upon this bill and upon the tariff bill without sectional feeling; but I think we have a right to ask that toward our inwrests there shall be simple justice. I would like to see manufactures and commerce encouraged; but I do not want to see taken from agriculture 21,000 million dollars and put into the pockets of the manufacturers of this country. NewEngland, NewYork, and Pennsylvania have not the right to ask this. We protect by most extraordinary duties the labor of NewEngland, and by most extraordinary duties we oppress the agricult ural interest. What res onse, cau Senators make to the people of t8 West, when the people are tol that a bushel of corn, which is worth in the farmer's crib, say 40 cents, when it has one process of manufacture, when it goes into liquor, and in a shape in which it can be shipped to a market, is to be taxed 8 dollars, and cotton is to be taxed an increase of 50%. in a billthat proposes to reduce the taxes of the country, and on the other hand that the labor of another section of the country is to be protected by a law which prohibits importation? It will not do to tell the country that this is a financial policy. It is not such. It is not imposed for purposes, simply and alone, of revenue. I will support that system of turilf which is designed for revenue. I am willing that the labor of NewEngland shall be benefited by a revenue tariff. Vo have to raise a large amount of gold to meet our public debt, and I am willing to agree to a revenue tariff. to discuss this matter before the people, I think that is enough. I think, then, that when that protection is given to the labor of one section of the country there ought not to be a direct tax upon the labor of another section of the country. Because this bill starts out with the policy of taxing an agricultural production in the shape in which it comes from the earth I will not vote for the report of the committee. While the taxes upon other articles of production are reduced you increase the tax upon one article of agricultural production; and next year it may take one step further. If you can tax cotton as it comes from the earth, wh may you not tax wheat? 3 cents a poun upon cotton, when cotton comes down to 9 or 10 cents a pound, is equal to 20, 30, or 35 cents a bushel on wheat. Suppose you say to the farmers of the West, we will tax wheat 20, 30, or 40 cents. Why not? Upon what principle do you refuse to do it? If it is right. to tax agricult ural labor in the production of one article as a raw material, why is it not right to tax another article of agricultural labor? If you can take this step this year you may take another step next year. I oppose it at the start. Idn not think it is right to tax the labor thatis expended upon the earth. Of course, Mr. President, this report will be adopted; of course the tariff bill that will come in here, a part. of this system, will also be adopted; and then the country will have the system n. system exceedingly t aVQrable to the labor of one portion of the country and depressing to the labor of another section of the country. This question will eventually have to be contested before the people, not.as a sectional question, I hope, but as aqnestion of justice to labor; and on that question I believe, the count will come to the right ‘udment.