Mr. GARli‘IELd). I do not see the perti nence of the gentleman’s question. Now, I wish to say that this talk about putting our people wholly into the business of raising grain for the world is utterly absurd and mischievous Let me puta practical question to these extreme free trade gentlemen in reference to this matter. Suppose that today we were at war with the rent Powers of Europe, and suppose we had a ways been practicing their precepts and were engaged wholly in raising grain having no manufacturing establishments, as we should not have had but for the protection that has been accorded to that class of industry b our predecessors would we not be comp etely at the mercy of the other nations of the earth? a Edward Everett declared in a speech in 1831, after making a careful estimate, that the extra amount paid by the Government of the U.S. for woolen blankets and clothing for their soldiers during the war of 1812 largely exceeded the amount of revenue ever derived by the U.S. from all its tariffs for the protection of all our industgv from the foundation of the Government to 1831, and it would have effected a great saving to the Government if Congress had expended many millions of money directly from the Treasury before that war, and had built up and had in readiness these manufactories for the use of the Government during the war. Against the abstract doctrine of free trade, as such, very little can be said. As a theory, there is much to commend it: but it can never be applied to nations except in time of peace. It can never be applied to the nations of the earth except when they are on the same range of growth and culture. 'Let war come and it utterly destroys and overturns the whole doctrine in its practical application. Says Pres cott: “Nothing'is easier than to parade abstract theo rems. truo 'llly the abstract, in political economy. nothing harder than to reduce them to practice. That an individual 'will understandhis own interestsbetterthan thoGovernment can. or, what is the sautething. that trade if let alone will find its way into the channelson the whole most advantageous to the community.few will deny. But whatis true of all togetheris not true of anyone singly; and no one nation can safely act on these principles if others do not. In oiut of fact.no nation has acted upon themsinest aformation of the present political comgmouvneirtniemsoefnt Europe. All that a new State, or a new in an old one, can nowproposeto itself is, not to sacrifice its interests to nspeculative ah straction. but to accommodate its institutions to the great political systemof which it is a member. On theseprinciples and on the higher obligation of providing the meansof national inzlepende co in its most extended sense much that was bad in the eco noinical policy of Spain at the period under review may be vrudwated.’ The example of England has been held up before us. A word about that example. There is a venerable member in this Hall who was a member of this House long before England had professed her free trade doctrines, while she was one of the most highly protective nations on the face of the earth. For 200 years she pursued a policy that was absolutely prohibitory; then followed a protective period; now she professes free trade. When she had built up manufactures and was able to compete successfully with the world in matters of commerce, she graciously invites all nations to drop their protective policy and become free traders. tis like a giant or an athlete, who after months of training should ask all [he delicate clerks and students to come out and fight or run with him single handed and on equal terms. I have before me a statement of the revenues of GreatBritain during the last year. Her total revenue for last year was $354,000,000. Of this sum $116,000,000, or 32%., she raised from customs, and it is a remarkable fact that that is precise] the%. of our revenue that was raise from customs last year. That shows that she raises as much by her tariff as we do in proportion to the amount of our revenue. If gentlemen desire simply to prostrate us before England; if they desire to capitulate to her in commerce as we never have capitulated in arms, let them follow in the lead of these freetrade philosophers. I hold a pamphlet in my hand that was aid upon the desks of members this morning; an in reply to the question of my colleague, [Mr. DELANQ] who in this country is demandin that this bill be defeated or postponed, I will tell him. Here is the address of the Free Trade Association of London to the American Free Trade League, and ifI had time I would read a few extracts from it. Let me read you some of the headings. Here is one: “protection unnecessary to foster manufactures in their infancy.” They have evidently outgrown their teach ers, for John Stuart Mill admits that much. England never taught that doctrine until her manufactures had passed beyond theirinfancy and stood breast high with the world in the full vigor of manhood. I read another sentence from this disinterested lecture of Englishmen to Americans; of the shop place er to is customer; of the “nation of shop cepers" to the nation of customers and grain raisers that some gentlemen would have us become. “You have most truly remarked in your constitution that protection to the producer means robbery to the consumer.” Now, the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. Kas sos] who has just made his spech, proceeds upon the doctrine that protection is itselfrobbery, and of course he will vote against this bill and against all other bills that propose to throw any protection whatever around American Industry. Twa propositions are before the House to keep us from acting directlyupon this bill. The real question is, will we pass the bill aftertherequisiteamendmentshave ecnmadc? But fearing it may pass, the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. WILSON] picks out a few pleasant items that refer mainly to the West, with a s rinkling for the East, and asks us to have the bill sent back to the committee with instructions to report those items alone. He offers a bait to one section of the Union to induce its representatives to neglect another. Mr. Speaker, it is painful to.listen to the sectional language we hear every day in our debates. One gentleman sneers at NewEng land, and says, “ This measure is a NewEng land pet;” another points at Pennsylvania, and hits her 00' in an epigraminatic sentence; another turns to the rough. sturdy West, and splinters his lance in a sharp assault ii on her. I always understood, during the terrible strug gle of the past 4 years, that we did not fight for NewEngland, we did not light for Pennsylvania, we did not light for the West, but we fought for the Union, with all its oneness, its greatness, and its glory. And if we are now to come back, after the victory is won, and hold up our party flags, and talk about “ our section ” as against “your section, ” we are neither patriots nor friends. There should be no division of interest in all great matters of national legislation. And if NewEngland has got further advanced than Pennsylvania or the West and does not need protection so much she must bear with her sisters until they, following in her footsteps, can stand on a basis of equal growth and prosperity. I hope, therefore, no suclrpartial legislation as that suggested b the motion of the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. “word will prevail. [would be ashame to vote for a measure that singled out the interests of my own State and neglected the interests of others.