{"character_count": 4931, "word_count": 863, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9714999794960022], "ccnet_perplexity": [1642.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
conviction of this assembly, and the SatlS-

 faction of the country. We are seeking I relief from an abiding eyil-redress from

 an existing wrong. We cannot stand

 where we are. We cannot, like the gen. tleman from Kentucky, rest on mere un- supported assertions. We must submit

 our proofs and maintain our positions if we

 can. It is greatly to be regretted, howev-

 CT, that the gentleman has not seen fit to

 present some of the strongest arguments in

 favor of his policy, as such course might

 have directed our inquiries to few lead-

 ing points, instead of making it necessary

 for us to wander at large through the wide

 field of argument presented by the protect

 ing system. The gentleman, however,

 has so far favored us as to specify two of

 the advantages which he asserts have been

 derived from it in this country, and in our

 day, and am perfectly willing to try the

 merits ofthe system by these tests which he

 has himself proposed. They shall, if the

 gentleman pleases, constitute the standard

 by which its true character shall be determ-

 ined. In the first place, then, the gentle

 man asserts, that the much abused poli-

 cy of 1924, (the protecting tariff of that

 year,) has filled our coffers and enabled us

 to pay off the public debt," debt of one

 hundred millions of principal, and one

 hundred millions ofinterest. Now, Sir, if any thing is capable of demonstration, it may be demonstrated that the protecting system could not, by possibility, have con- tributed in the slightest degree to produce this result. One would suppose, indeed, that the very last merit which would be as- cribed to this system, was its tendency to fill the "public cofers." It unquestion- ably to tariff, arranged and adjusted with a single eye to revenue, that we are to look for such a result. The object of pro- tecting tariff, as such, certainly is to dimin- ish or exclude importations, and of course to lessen the amount of revenue derived from duties. The very end and aim of such system is, to substitute, for the im- ported article, paying taxe to government, -the domestic article paying none-to transmute the duty into bounty to tho manufacturers and, just so far as this end is atrained-that is to say just so far as the tariff is protective, must it cut off the pub lie revenue. Do we not all remember, that the leading argument in favor of the protecting provisions of the tariff of 1924, was, that they were necessary, "to put down ruinous foreign competition ;" and did not one the fathers of that bill pub licly declare, "that the vital principle of the system was, that the nation should command its own consumption, and that when the nation did command it's own con- impsrtations and imposts would cease" Sir, there are two distinct fea- lures in the tariff of 1824-revenue and protection. It is the former that has filled our coffers, and paid off the public debt and, so far as the latter has operated at all, it must have diminished the revenue, and delayed the extinction of that debt. Sir, will put it to the candor of the gentleman, whether, if the protecting duties and the tariff of 1924, had been less, the revenue would not have been greater, and that, too, without adding to, but on the contra ry, diminishing the burdens of the people, since they would have obtained the articles of their consumption, in increased qnali- ties and at cheaper rate, and been reliev- ed from the heavy tax which they have been compelled to pay the American man. ufacturers Why, sir, the policy of 1924 actually taxed to prohibition large a. mount of goods formerly imported. From a report made by the Secretary of the Treasury, in January, 1880, it appears that these prohibited articles amount to a. bout eight millions of dollars per annum, being nearly one sixth part of the whole of our imports. Has this part of the policy contributed to fill your coffers7 Sir. the case is too plain for further argument, and tried by this test, the policy must be utter ly condemned.

 The next test by which the gentleman proposes to try this system, is, i" the rich fruits which it has scattered over the coun- try" Sir where are they to be found ?- Is it in the Vest 1 appeal to the gentle men from that quarter. We have heard a great deal of the fourishing condition of the manufacturing establishments else- where but where are the manufacturing villages, the joint stock companies, the splendid dividends, and other evidences of prosperity to be found in the West2 I submit it to tho candor of the gentleman, whether the benefits of the protecting sys- tenn, SO far as the West is concerned, do not still rest in hope--whether the system would be sustained day, if it were not for its sup posed connection with Internal Improve it is not indebted for it's popularity, in that quarteE, to the unhappy, the fatal marriage between the tariff and in- ternal improvements--a union which yet