Mr. FESSENDEN. I am obliged to the Senator for his information; but it only goes to sustain the position that in this country we have confined ourselves thus far very much to the growth of flax for the purpose of seed. But although that is the case, yet courage if we are to en the manufacture of articles from flax in this country it is very proper to make it an object to the farmers or growers of flax to raise it and take it at that particular period of its growth when it is used for that purpose, and that is the object of the section. But up to this period the linen manufacture has made no very great advance here; and it is hardly worth our while with reference to a revenue tariff to take all at once such action as will effectually cut off the importation of these articles, while at the same time it is advisable so far as we can to encourage reasonably a commencement upon this very important manufacture. There is the distinction, as I apprehend, betweenthe House bill and the Senate bill, which latter bill is founded mainly upon the report made by the Commissioner who examined the subject with very great care, and received a great deal of evidence upon it on both sides. The ComFinance did not think it worth while on this point to be prohibitory. And they took into consideration another question in several parts of this bill and I would direct the attention of the Senate to that, because there are portions of the bill which are founded upon that idea that while we are protecting the manufactures of the country, which is a matter of great importance, which I have always sustained and probably always will sustain, there is one great interest that should not be forgotten that has been heretofore considered by all nations as a very important part of national wealth, a great national arm; and that is the foreign commerce of the country. It is obvious that if we carry our tariff system so far in the protection of manufactures and in the excluding of articles from foreign countries as to cut off importations, leaving out of view the revenue question, which has been so well discussed by my honorable friendfrom Ohio, we in fact destroy our foreign commerce, for if nothing be imported we are not in a condition to export to any great extent, and if we have no trade with foreign countries so far asoany of their products is concerned we shall be very likely to have no commerce. That is now not exactly the condition of our foreign commerce, but it is tending to that with such rapidity that every man who feels that commerce is a great arm of national wealth must also feel that it is necessary to do something with reference to that interest, and that in protecting manufactures we should not destroy what certainly is of equal necessity to the country as anyone manufacture or perhaps any considerable number of manufactures. We had reference to that consideration some what in going through this bill. When we looked at certain articles which form a considerable item in our commerce with foreign countries, we inquired whether on the whole it was worth our while to go so far as to prohibit the importation of all articles of that description and thus end our commercial relations with those countries. In regard to these very articles of linens we get from a Power which is certainly as friendly to us as any Power on the face of the earth, as was shown during our late troubles I allude to Russia a very important article of linen manufacture, crash and coarse linen, which is made by the peasantry there. In fact we have very little. left with Russia except in these articles. Indeed, I am informed that the House bill will pretty much put an end, not only to this trade, but to our trade with Germany. I do not think it will, because all experience has shown that no matter how high you put the tariff, even if you go to such an extent as to make it what is called prohibitory, it does not in the end turn out to be actually prohib itory, but there will be some trade left. would not, however, for light considerations undertake to interfere with an important article of trade with an important and friendly Power unless I saw that it was a matter of extreme necessity with reference to some particular manufacture in our country which it was essential to support, so that it became on the whole advisable. I am a protective tariff man, and I believe I am an older protective tariff man so far as congressional action is concerned than any member of the Senate, and probably older in years than most members, for I happened to be a member of the Congress that passed the cele brated tariff act of 1842, and I lent my feeble aid to its passage, and on every occasion since when I have had an opportunity such aid as I could render has not been wanting to sustain the same principle and the same idea. But with regard to the doctrine of protection per se, I do not go so far as to say that whatever may be the condition of the country it is advisable at any and all times, when an interest springs up which may be valuable in itself, to put an end to all trade which might interfere with that interest. I hold that with regard to some great interests of the country protection is so absolutely necessary that, if there were no other way of accomplishing the object, I would go to the length of prohibition for the sake of protecting them, because they are essential to national protection as well as to national wealth. In this list I would include iron and the manufactures of iron, and wool and woolen manufactures. I might name others, but these 2 are sufficient. But the idea has seemed to prevail of late that if anybody chooses to start a new manufacture by way of experiment, thinking he can succeed in it, forthwith it becomes the duty of the country, whatever may be the effect on foreign commerce, or whatever may be the effect by way of taxation upon the individuals using the article, to at once place such duties on the foreign article as will effectually prevent the importation of that article if it interferes in any way with the prosperity of the manufacture thus started. I do not go so far as that. I think we must conform to circumstances and proceed gradually in reference to such matters. I hope I shall be excused for making these go. I do not intend to repeat them. With regard to this matter of linens, I can only say that I hope the amendment proposed by the Senfrom RhdIsland will not be adopted. In the 1st place he will excuse me for referring to it again it is perfectly obvious that we should protect the raw material. We do not go near so far in that respect as the House bill, and yet we furnish what would be unquestionably an adequate protection. With reference to the manufactured articles, the Senator complains that we o very low duties on low priced articles, and e has singled out one, the article of burlaps. Its use, as I understand, is principally confined, almost exclusively, to the manufacture of cot ton bagging, as it is called, that is, bagging used for cotton bales. We do not think it advisable just at present to heap any more burdens upon the cotton business of the country than we are obliged to do. It is in a very depressed condition. It is unquestionably an important article, an agricultural product in timately connected with the national wealth; and it being a coarse article, hardly manufactured here at all, we do not think the time has come to lay a heavy duty on it. Then take the article of crash, which I be forementioned. It is an article not made in this country, and will probably never be made here. The crash made here is a mixture of linen and cotton, a totally different article from the coarse crash made by the Russian peas antry, and which goes into the hands of every individual almost. It would be laying a heavy burden on everybody who uses a towel or any cloth made from this coarse crash to put a high duty on it. We place an advalorem duty of 35%. on all these articles, but Senators will see at once that as the article grows in fineness, and consequently in price, the duty becomes higher; for instance, upon a handker chief which costs a dollar, 35% is 35 cents, which would seem to be a pretty good protection. These articles are not manufactured in this country at present. The protection afforded by this section, as we think, is sufficient sufficient to accomplish the purpose of starting the business in i.country if anybody is disposed to start it. The Senator says certain machinery has been purchased under the encouragement of congress providing that it might be imported free of duty. Well, they have got the machinery in free of duty, but they imported it under the existing tariff, knowing what the duties were. Knowing what the duties were and asking that they might be permitted to import that machinery free of duty, they must be understood as saying that they could get along under the tariff as it stood at that time. It seems, however, from their present statements that they were wrong in their calculation. But however that may be, we have put the duties as high as we think the article will bear. The Commissioner had all these people before him I do not mean everybody engaged in the trade, but large numbers; he examined the matter care fully, and he informs me that a considerable majority Of those interested in the manufacture of linen told him that 35%. placed upon the manufactured article would be sufficient protection. This was only last sum mer. He reported 30%., but we have raised it to 35. They were satisfied with that, though certain individuals claim more, and those individuals come here and are persistent in their claim. I have great respect for the manufacturers of this country, as much as I have for any other class of men; they are intelligent, and they understand their own interests. E. I tell the Senate now, from the testimony before the committee, and from all the information we have, that it will hot do for us to leave the formation of a tariff to the manufacturers themselves. They have too much interest in it, and, as Sam Patch used to say, there is a great deal of human nature in men, and there is no end to the claims they will put forward for protection. We must exercise our own judgment upon the question: On this point the Commissioner examined the matter with great care; he received testimony; and he came to the conclusion that he did. The committee have examined it, and they are satisfied with the section on the reasons stated and the information afforded to them. It is best, in my judgment, to let the section stand as we have reported it. If, when it goes back to the other House, that House, on recxamination, should think we have not gone high enough they will change it, and then the committee of conference, which will undoubt edly be appointed, will agree upon something that will be just to all parties. I. am satisfied with it as it is, and I hope the Senate will not agree to the amendment proposed.