Mr. HENDERSON. It will be observed that this section as it stands is an absolute discrimination in favor of a certain section of the country, and I desire to know whether the Senate in passing a tariff bill is disposed to discriminate in favor of vessels built in any particular section of this country. I wish to call the attention of the Senate and the attention of the country to the fact, and if gentlemen then wish to put their names on the record on the subject, they can do so. Now, what is this proposition? I know that in Maine and in Connecticut it will be said that the commercial interests are flagging and that they are not now building the vessels that they built from 1856 up to 1860. I am aware of that, and I am perfectly willing to do anything in my power, that is not a piece of absolute and down right injustice to any other section of the country, to advance that interest; and my opinion is that if my policy were adopted in reference to tariff measures, the tonnage of those States would increase as it did from 1856 to 1860. But a contrary policy is to be adopted. The commercial interests of the country are, in my judgment, to be pros trated. The entire amount of revenue that is to be collected to meet this vast public debt that is now hanging heavily upon the shoulders of the people of the U.S. is to be paid by a certain class or a certain interest in this country. Now, when it begins to pinch upon a particular section that section flinches. When it is ascertained that a ship cannot be built in NewYork, in Maine, in Connecticut, or in RhdIsland, under this bill, gentlemen in order to escape the inevitable effect of the bill say they will return to the ship builder the amount of money that shall have been paid upon the articles entering into the construction of his vessels in the shape of a tariff duty. If a vessel is built at the city of StLouis or at the city of Pittsburg or at the city of Wheeling or at the city of Cincinnati, I ask if there is any drawback to be paid to the owner of the vessel. Here is a proposition, not to encour age eastern manufacture, not to encourage western manufacturers, but an absolute inducement held out to the ship owner and ship builder to put the foreign manufacture into the vessel in order that he may obtain the drawback. This is a contradiction of the entire principle of this measure. As I understand it, it has been, from the beginning up to the last amendment that has been offered and voted down, to protect the manufacturing interests of the country. Sir; if the iron manufacturer, the hemp manufacturer, the rope maker, the cop per manufacturer are to be protected, let that protection stand in one case as well as in an other. Are vessels to be built of foreign cop er, of foreign hemp? Is foreign canvas to e used in their construction? Are the nails that enter into their construction to be of foreign manufacture, contrary to every principle that has entered into the framing of this measure? Why, sir, it returns to every man building a vessel of any size from ten to 20,000 dollars as a bonus for using articles of foreign production in the construction. Now, I desire to ask whether a vessel built in the West is to be excluded from the operation of this measure? Is the man who builds at Louisville or at StLouis to have a draw back returned to him? No, sir; but the build er of every sailing vessel is to have it returned. Now, I ask what is the difference between sailing vessels and steamers. There are 2 great rivers on which are borne the productions of the West. One is the StLawrence, a contin uation of the lakes, Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Ontario, and Lake Erie, and sailing vessels are built upon them. Are those sailing vessels to be exempted from the operations of this measure? I mean that portion of it which imposes duties. Are the duties to be returned to the manufacturer of a vessel that sails upon the StLawrence and not given back to those who build vessels on the Mississippi and Missouri rivers? Where is the justice of a measure of that character? Mr. President, there are many things in this bill that might be considered; but the hour has long since passed when they can be considered. The mere fiat of one or F. 2 consigns every to the grave. I care not how just, how equitable, or how righteous a proposition may be, it is disposed of by a mere word of contempt, a mere exPression of the fact that it is already settled and compromised and fixed among gentlemen who compromise the great interests of the West, and H. compromised them, in my judgment. The Senfrom Massachusetts [Mr. WILson] this afternoon offered an amendment on the subject of woolens, increasing the rates of duty largely. Yesterday he and his colleague voted consistently to bury this bill as it ought to be buried. I want to know, since that has been adopted with the consent of the chairman of this important committee, whether he will vote against it now? Yesterday the able and distinguished Senfrom Maine lectured the Senator on my left [Mr. SHERMAN] for changing the bill as it came from the committee, and much was I surprised when the Senfrom Massachusetts who had voted against this bill again and again rise in his place and offered an amendment on the subject of woolens and thereby doing away with all his opposition, and that of his colleague, to the measure, to see the Senfrom Maine, after having lectured his colleague on the committee, fall in and vote willingly for the proposition, and say that it was a good measure. Why, sir, anything is voted upon this bill when the committee say that it is right; anything is voted down when the committee say that it is wrong. But, sir, I have said enough. I am sorry that some propositions I have offered are not to be accepted and will not be accepted; but if gentlemen desire to do so, they can go on o pass the measure as it stands and take the consequences before the country. I of course shall do all that I possibly can to reconcile the feelings of the people of my section to it, and shall endeavor to adapt the interests of the country as far as I possibly can to the measure. But to make me believe, as a rePresentative of that section in which i live, that this measureis right, or that it will operate for the best interests of any section, is impossible. I believe that it is a combination simply of interests, and that the committee themselves, in many cases, have been imposed upon. I accord to them diligence; I accord to them patriot ism; I accord to them all that I claim for myself; I accord to them nothing more. If the report of a committee is to be accepted, except where the committee itself deviates from it, you may abolish the Senate and dispense with all the rest of us. But, sir, if our views are worthy of consideration they ought to be treated at least with some respect. What I have said I may possibly have said with some little excitement, but I trust it will be excused when I say that, in my judgment, every possible interest of my pecular section is disregarded. No proposition that I have been able to make, either increasing rates in the West or decreasing them, has been adopted. On the article of raw hides, in which we are interested largely, I proposed an increase from 5%. advalorem to 15%., but. not get it, although all the interests of the section near us here have been raised from 80 to 100%. Mr. President, I shall content myself with the opposition I have made to this bill. I have various other amendments but I shall not offer more than one or two: perhaps not even that many, for I see that it is an utter impossibility to influence this body. They sit and calmly vote against any amendment that is laughed at, or that it is intimated by a member of the com: mittee ought not to be adopted. We are told “the thing has all been examined, it has all been looked into;” and quietly, silently, and calmly all propositions that come from a certain direction are voted down. It avails nothing that an interest in my section suffers; but if the woolen interest of Massachusetts suffers, modifications are made, and all the opposition that was threatened from that quarter, I apprehend, has pased away to be revived no more. If the bill is to frustrate the great ship building interest of Maine, how is that to be avoided? It is to be avoided by returning every dollar that is paid to the foreign, manufacturer for the articles entering into the construction of the vessel. That is to be returned as a bonus to the man who makes the vessel. Yet, if I were to propose, with regard to vessels built at StLouis or Galena or Louisville or other points along the western waters, that the same bounty should be returned to the builder, how would the proposition be received in this body? Mr. President, let the fate of the few amendments I have offered answer the query. You know what would become of it. Am I to be told again “this thing has been considered in committee; we know how it stands; and the Senfrom Missouri is ignorant of what he talks about?” Perhaps it is so; but I only crave the privilege of casting my vote in favor of striking out that section from this bill.