commercial interests involved in her relations with the United States, and it also would be very difficult for her to defend Canada and her other possessions against us. She is not rashly going to war with us. At this very time she is engaged in a Chinese war, and an East India war, and is, in addition to that, threatened with European difficulties. She, therefore, has no motive to seek war with us. The present English Cabinet is believed to be favorable to a liberal settlement of this question. Let us go forward and get it settled now. It is not, at this time, of much practical importance, and, therefore, it may be the more readily adjusted. If it is not done, in the future, when a practical question shall arise in relation to it, it may involve us in war.

Mr. Bliss. I have listened with a great deal of attention, but do not understand what the object of this movement is. Do I understand the gentleman as advocating a policy leading to the seizure of Cuba and Central America?

Mr. Clingman. No, sir.

Mr. Bliss. What, then, is the idea?

Mr. Clingman. It is to abrogate this treaty.

Mr. Bliss. But all the gentleman's argument is directed to explaining our standing and position in respect to Cuba and Central America; and, as I understand it, no sooner is the Kansas question disposed of, than this Cuba and Central America question is raised, for the extension of slavery.

Mr. Clingman. I cannot answer for the gentleman's understanding. This may not be a matter of very great practical importance now; but it is my judgment that, ten, twenty, or fifty years hence, it may be our policy to acquire those territories, and I desire to remove obstructions

now.

As I said before, suppose, when Great Britain protested against the annexation of Texas, a treaty had been enforced binding us not to acquire it its annexation would, in that event, have led to war. The infraction of a positive agreement with her, in addition to an act to which she was hostile, must necessarily have led to war. We had no obligations in the way, and no rupture resulted. I desire to remove all offensive alliances which shall stand in our way hereafter.

Mr. Giddings. I desire to ask the gentleman whether he is to be understood as advocating the annexation of Cuba, or whether he discards that idea?

Mr. Clingman. I will answer the gentleman with pleasure, though I do not desire to embark in the discussion of that subject. I will say that I should be very glad to see Cuba annexed to this country. I would have been glad to get it upon fair and honorable terms four years ago, and I think the country ought to have taken it upon the happening of the Black Warrior affair. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty does not touch Cuba. We could get Cuba without abrogating this treaty. I care nothing in the world about it so far as Cuba is concerned. I should like to see Cuba a part of this Union. Its annexation would also stop the African slave trade and this more objectionable traffic in Chinese and East Indians who are carried there and destroyed. Would not the gentleman like to see an annexation of Cuba by which the slave trade and the Coolie trade would be stopped?

Mr. Giddings. I do not rise to embarrass my friend. I would ask him this question: is he in favor of the acquisition of Cuba now?

Mr. Clingman. If the gentleman will point me to any honorable mode by which we can get Cuba, I will give that mode my support this very moment. If the Executive can make a treaty with Spain for Cuba, I would favor that project, provided the equivalent were not unreasonable. Some time ago I offered a resolution calling for information on Spanish affairs, but I understand that it is inexpedient to furnish that information up to this time. If our difficulties with Spain are not settled, I am willing, in the ultimate stage, to go to war with her, and then, if we can conquer Cuba, I will not complain of that result.

Mr. Giddings. I understand the gentleman to refer to the Ostend circular.

Mr. Clingman. I do.

Mr. Giddings. Does the gentleman approve of the terms of that document?

Mr. Clingman. Yes, sir.

Mr. Giddings. That will answer my purpose.

Mr. Clingman. I think I go quite as far as Old Buck does in this line. I have, Mr. Speaker, nearly used up the time which, by the courtesy of the House, has been given to me, and I must bring my remarks to a conclusion. All I desire is for the House fairly to indorse the position assumed by the President.

Mr. Davis, of Maryland. Let me ask my friend to explain one point. His resolution speaks of abrogating the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Does he contemplate that the President, by his own authority, shall do that, or that negotiations shall go on to that effect?

Mr. Clingman. The President has said, in his message, that it ought to have been abrogated long ago by consent of both parties. I have good reason to believe -I wish I could state all the reasons for my belief that the British Cabinet are tired of the negotiations which have been going on for eight years upon this subject, and that they are now ready to adjust the question on honorable terms; and I have no doubt that the Executive, by proper effort, will be enabled to do it at this time. I do not know that it could be done twelve months hence, or at a later day. But, by its abrogation, every gentleman will see that we will get rid of the shackles that now clog us, and be left as free from entangling alliances with European Powers as we had been from the days of General Washington down to the ratification of this treaty.

Mr. Barksdale. Does my friend mean to intimate that Great Britain is willing to give up Roatan?

Mr. Clingman. I will answer with pleasure. Great Britain, by the Dallas treaty, agreed to give up Roatan to Honduras, provided there was a guarantee that slavery should never go there. The United States would make no such guarantee, and that treaty was rejected. I have no doubt, however, that Great Britain will, in view of her treaty with Honduras, agree to abandon her claims in that quarter, and also withdraw on reasonable terms, her Mosquito protectorate. The feeling of the American people is against this Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Its current is setting so strongly in that direction that no one can expect to change it. Let the Government, then, do its duty, and we are again free, and the path of destiny is open before us. Here the hammer fell.]

SPEECH

AGAINST PROTECTIVE TARIFFS, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 10, 1859.

The Senate having resumed the consideration of the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Bigler, on the 31st of January:

Resolved, As the opinion of the Senate, that the creation of a large public debt in time of peace is inconsistent with the true policy of the United States; and as the present revenues are insufficient to meet the unavoidable expenses of the government, Congress should proceed without delay, to so readjust the revenue laws as not only to meet the deficit in the current expenses, but to pay off the present debt so far as it may be liable to immediate cancellation.

MR. CLINGMAN said:

MR. PRESIDENT: I hope not to occupy the Senate at as great length as the gentlemen who have proceeded me on this question. The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bigler) remarked, in opening the debate, that he was acting under the instructions of his Legislature. My colleague and I have, likewise, been instructed to oppose all increase of duties upon the products of mining and manufacturing, and to insist upon making railroad iron free of duty. Here is a collision between States, and the appeal must be to reason.

The distinguished Senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) who yesterday occupied the floor, covered a portion of the ground which is necessary to be occupied on this question; and everybody knows that where his scythe has gone, there is not much left for anybody to glean. Feeling relieved from a part of the task I had undertaken, I expect to speak more particularly to another branch of the subject. The President of the United States has recommended specific duties. He makes no express recommendation for an increase of duties, or taxation.

But the friends of higher protection have seized upon this occasion, and are making an effort to get increased duties. The Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bigler) says that he, with his friends, will be satisfied with fifteen dollars a ton on bar iron; and his colleague (Mr. Cameron) says eighteen dollars is necessary. We all know iron is worth but little more than thirty dollars a ton in England, and this amounts to fifty or sixty per cent. on its value. It is an increase, therefore, of more than double the present rate of duty, which is twenty-four per cent. The real question is, whether we are ready for that? They say it is necessary to protect American labor. How do they propose to effect it? Is not the case fairly stated in this way? A man in the northwest last year worked very hard, and by his labor produced four hundred bushels of wheat, worth $400. Another man in the South, working equally hard, produced eight bales of cotton, worth likewise $400. Each of these men proposes to exchange his

product for bar iron, and an Englishman stands ready to give them ten tons of it for his product; but a Pennsylvania iron-master says: "This man is a foreigner; I am your countryman; trade with me." They assent to it, and an exchange is proposed between them. He says: "My iron costs me more to make it than the English iron costs its manufacturer, and I cannot let you have more than seven tons." They decline his offer, and are not willing, in this way, to lose the value of three tons of iron. He then appeals to the government to impose a duty, or tax, of thirty per cent. on all purchases from the English, and it is done. One of these men says: "I shall lose the value of three tons, if I trade with the Englishman; I may as well trade with you. Take my wheat, and give me seven tons of iron." The Pennsylvanian, however, says: "I have supplied myself with wheat from my neighbor already; sell your wheat for money, and then buy my iron." He then goes to the Englishman and asks cash for his wheat, but is met with this declaration: "I could give you ten tons of iron for your wheat, but I am not prepared to pay you the money." Suppose, however, he does succeed, in selling for cash; if he then purchases the iron from the Pennsylvanian, he loses three tons; and if the other planter does likewise, he loses the value of three tons of iron also. I use this simple illustration, but it is a fair statement of the case; and the result is, that each of those individuals loses the value of three tons of iron, and the manufacturer gets six, and the government receives not one cent. That is the policy to which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cameron) is endeavoring to drive us, by excluding foreign productions altogether. If, however, it should turn out, as is usually the fact, that the Pennsylvanian has only seven tons of iron and cannot supply the demand of both, then one of these men has to purchase of the foreigner, and the result is, the government gets the value of three tons in duties; the Pennsylvanian gets three tons as protection, and these individuals lose six between them.

Now, Mr. President, it is very easy to see that if the object of this taxation was to support the government, these two individuals might pay the tax with half the expenditure to themselves. They have to pay, on the one hand, to the government, and on the other, to the manufacturer, an equal amount. As the government received the value of only three tons, half that sum, paid by each of them, would have answered the purpose, For example: the importations last year of tea and coffee were about twenty-seven million dollars; and the consumption of sugar likewise about twenty-seven million dollars. Now, suppose you want to raise $5,000,000 by a tax; if you impose it on tea and coffee, and the consumers pay that amount, the govern ment gets all of it, because those articles are not made in the United States at all. Suppose, however, you impose the duty on sugar: they pay the $5,000,000, but one half of it goes to the sugar-planters, and the other half to the government; because about one half the sugar consumed is made in the United States. In fact, the government would receive only $2,500,000; and hence, to get $5,000,000, you would have to make the tax twice as high as if it were placed on tea and coffee. In other words a duty of ten per cent. on coffee and tea would give the

government as much money as would twenty per cent. on sugar, because half of the sugar tax would go to the planters and makers of sugar.

But, sir, to return to my illustration. If these two individuals should complain of that, the Pennsylvanian tells them: "My iron establishment furnishes employment to American laborers." One of those men may say to him: "I keep a blacksmith's shop where the iron is worked up into plows and hoes and axes, and used as industrial tools; and this furnishes the means of employment to many." The other one says: "We are making in my section a railroad; we are leveling hills and filling up valleys, to lay down iron rails as fast as we can get them; we employ now a vast amount of labor in making the road; and when we get it done, we shall open a market for our productions to the sea side, and in that way encourage all kinds of industry." It is demonstrable that the creation of a railroad will cause a larger demand for labor than the iron furnace where the rails are made. Then, what becomes of the argument as to the protection of American industry?

They say, however, that they afford a home market at their manufacturing establisments. But, in fact, the northwestern man, when he gets his wheat to Chicago, can have it carried to England as easily as to the Pennsylvania iron establishment; and even if he should carry it there, nine times out of ten they do not want it, because they are supplied by persons in the neighborhood. It is the same with cotton. It goes from Southern ports to Europe as cheaply and easily as it does to the manufacturers in the North, and the great bulk of it necessarily goes abroad. The burden, therefore, of this system is spread all over the country; the benefit goes to the manufacturers and to those in their immediate locality. How much is this whole burden? I have taken pains to collect some facts, which I can present in a few minutes, and which I think will enable Senators to form some tolerably accurate idea of the amount which it costs the country. Before doing so, allow me to say one word as to the two rival theories on this subject.

There was a distinguished South Carolinian-one of the ablest debaters ever known in this country, or in any other-I mean the late Mr. McDuffie-who advocated a theory which was known as the forty-bale theory, and derided by its opponents. I do not refer to it because I think it sound; for I regard it as demonstrably erroneous in part; but a reference to it will enable me to explain what I think the facts will show to bo the true theory of this system of taxation.

Mr. McDuffie declared that the case could be so clearly stated that he never had seen it tried before a popular assembly without producing universal conviction. His statement was something like this: a company of manufacturers, which he located in the North, would manufacture goods to supply the State of South Carolina; another company of planters there undertook to produce cotton, rice and tobacco, to exchange them for goods to supply the demand of the same locality. He supposed each of these companies to bring in $100,000 worth of their goods. When the manufacturing company bring in theirs, they can sell them at once, as there is no tax upon them; but let the export