Mr. ALLISON. I am obliged to the Gent from Maine [Mr. Lvxcn] for his courtes. lyhave stated the principal interests which the Gentfrom Pennsylvania upprn. KELLEY] bases his opposition to this bill. There are other great interests involved in this bill which I think ought to be considered. The great West, the farm producing section of this country, is entitled to the consideration of this committee and of this House, and at the proper time I shall move some amendments to this bill which I think will protect that great interest. I do not wish gentlemen to suppose for a moment that we consider the duty of 20 cents perbushel upon wheat, an 20%. advalorem duty upon live anima s is in an degree a protection to the farmin interests of the country. It will, no doubt, have some effect upon the prices. But the truth is, we produce in the great western States of this country, the States of Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, a sufficient amount of live animals, and of wheat, corn, and barley, and that class of products, to make entirely value less for protection the small duty upon those great staples. These 3 States, as appears from the agricultural statistics of 1864, produced one 4th of all the live stock, 1/3rd of all the wheat, and 1/2 of the corn produced in the U.S. duringthat year. Besides, we send to the Provinces more wheat than we import from the Provinces; we send them each year a large amount of corn and receive little or none from them. What is 20%. advalorem upon live animals to the great producing States I have named? Or what is 20 cents perbushel on wheat and ten cents upon corn? It costs us more than that sum to transport our wheat and our corn from the Mississippi to Buf falotand the lake waters. such a duty would atlord us but very little protection, if there was great competition in the production of these articles and so far as I understand this bill, it is not framed especially upon the principle of protection. It is designc, at least in a certain degree, to maintain and continue the commerce which has grown up within the last few cars between this country and the British provinces. But while we O this we must so regulate the duties as to protect every branch ofindustry; and in this Ipwould include especially the great interest so ably represented by my colleague [Mr. GRINNEI.L]tll0 wool interest of this country. We must protect other great reductions of this country as well as our manu actures; butdlt the same time we must see to it that the revenues from this source be increased; and we cannot accomplish that exceptby the adoption of some measure which will be just to this country and will not en; tirely cut off the trade which has existed between us and the British American Provinces. N ow, sir, this bill contains provisions which certainly commend themselves in some degree to the farming interests of the West. I refer to those provisions designed to keep open those great channels of communication upon which we rel for the transportation of our produce from e West to the ast; but I tell gentlemen on this floor that we are not satisfied with the provisions of this bill in this respect. I cannot but remember that at the last session, when the question of a Niagara ship canal was before this House, a large number of gentlemen representing certain interests of this country voted against that measure a measure absolutely essential to the transportation of our western produce to the East. I will take this occasion to 511 to the committee that we must have increase focililies for the transportation of our great products. f we do not obtain such facilities the productive industries of NewEngland and all the great central States must not expect us to join in giving them that protection which they have enjoyed the last few cars. Legislation on these questions must. e mutual and reciprocal. If they would continue to produce for us the great manufactured products which we have been accustomed to obtain from them, they must give us the facilities for reaching their mills and their factories with the great sta les of the western States. This can only be one by the enlargement of our great natural channels and by new modes of water communication. The Welland canal is of value to us; but its value is small compared with the increasing interests and increasing products of the West. The Canadian railroads are of value to us because they do to some extent create a compe tition with the great east and west line from Chicago to the sea board. The inevitable laws of trade and of self interest will keep these avenues open despite reciprocal legislation or hostile enactments. But they are not adequate. We should havea canal within our own borders, connecting the great Lakes Erie and Ontario, of sufficient capacity to pass our large lake vessels. We must also improve at the national expense the great Mississippi river, of which I shall say more hereafter. Here the hammer fell.] Mr. LYNCH.R. Chairman, I hardly know whether to avail myself of the privilege so Generously granted me of speaking for live or ten minutes on this question. 5 or ten minutes isa very short time in which to attempt the discussion of a greatquestion like this a question which has agitate the country for more than 30 years; for I beg gentlemen to bear in mind that this is not Simply a tariff bill; it is something more; it is, as the gentfrom Illinois has said, a reenactment of the reciprocity treat; but it reenacts it in such a we that we shalfi realize all the advantages which we enjoyed under that treaty, while we shall give in return a very small equivalent. The treaty of 1818 was intended to settle the northeastern boundary of the count the boundary line between the State of Maine and the Province of NewBrunswick and also to define the rights of the U.S. withlre gard to the fisheries on the coast of Newfound land. Within 2 or 3 years after the ratification of that treaty, the question of the boundary between Maine and NewBrunswick was brought into dispute, and from that time until 1838 or 1839 there was constant trouble growing out of the question of that disputed boundary. The dispute finally gave rise to what was known as the Aroostook war, in which the State of Maine attempted to protect her territory from invasion and occupation by an armed force. The U.S. interfered in the matter, and Maine was obliged to with draw. The result was the treaty of Washington of 1842, by which that boundary line was settled, Maine losing 5,000 square miles of her territory. By that treaty the rights and interests of the State of Maine and the honor of the nation were sacrificed. About the same time, in the year 1823, this question of the fisheries, which was attempted to be settled by treaty in 1818, ve rise to another misunderstanding; and from that time until the reciprocity treaty was made there was constant trouble with GreatBritain on thisquestion of the fisheries. Our fishermen were riven off or seized, and we were on the verge of war with that country. It was to avoid these constant troubles about the fisheries this reciprocity treaty was negotiated. The right to fish and cure our fish on the coast of Newfound land was granted to us. It was so well defined at that time that it has never been called into question since. The right was also granted to navigate the StLawrence and the Canadian cana s. I will say further