{"character_count": 5809, "word_count": 995, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9603000283241272], "ccnet_perplexity": [759.5], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
mercial dependence is mutual political inde- pendence. And undertake to say, with all becoming solemnty, that God has not, in all his merciful dispensations, conferred any greater temporal blessing upon the human race than by that which has given rise 10 commercial intercourse among nations; sub stituting the mutual blessings of prosperity, peace and good will, in place of the curses of war, desoation, and mutual spirit of ha- ted and revenge. If were inclined to doubt the existence of God, this dispensation alone would disabuse my mind, and reclaim me from the delusion. And, sir, 1t is this strong tie of mutual interests this mutual bond, with heavy penalties, binding nations to keep the peace; this hamburger of civilization and herald of Christianity, that 1t is the ayowed purpose and inevitable effect of this protec- tive system to destroy. We have all learn cd in our elementary school books, that the mutual wants and mutual dependence of in- dividuals is the only foundation upon which

 the superstrueture of the social state and of

 civil society could ever have been erected- i But for that we should still have been say

 age barbarians. And 1t can hardly be doubt

 ed that these mutual wants, and this mutual l dependence, are even more essential to the

 harmony and happiness of nations. He can

 hardly be regarded as philanthropiss or a

 Christian, who would intentionally counter

 act one of the most beneficent ordinances of l God

 These general remarks, Mir. President, are

 not submitted without practical purpose,

 and as mere idle display of philosophical

 speculation but make them in reference

 to state of things now rapidly approach

 ing, and which l might alost say is actually

 at hand It cannot be disguised that it is the

 object of this policy-an object actually an nounced by its advocates-to prohibit entire ly the importation of those foreign manuiac- lures which come in competition with our own, and which are precisely those com moditles which constitute almost exclusive iy the basis of our commerce with Great

 Britain, France, and the other manufacturing

 nations of Europe. Now, sir, to exclude

 these foreign manufactures, Is to destroy that commerce which we now carry on with the great nations which produce them. This commerce, curtailed and mutlated as 1t has

 been for the last twenty years. is still exten- sive, and still supplies your government with the greater part of its revenue, as 1t has done from the beginning. Already you have destroyed one-half of accompanying what 1t is with what it would have been, but for your protective and prohibitory policy, under which 1t IS now rapidly verging to extinction. The manufacturing nations of Europe will not and cannot purchase our exports if we refuse to receive their productions in exchange for them. The consummation, then, to which your suicidal policy is approaching, is the total destruction of the commerce we now carry on with those nations of Europe with whom 1t is most peculiarly our interest to strengthen the ties of mutual interest, and consolidate the relations of national amity.

 But while you are thus steadily advancing in the policy of destroying commerce. you are steadily advancing, at the enormous ex- pense of nine millions year, in supporting and increasing your navy. Now, sir, as the protection of commerce IS the only object which can justify the expense of maintaining a navy, if you destroy commerce, say de- strey the navy also. Letus become Chinese at once; not as they are, but as they were. Let us shrink down into our shells, like ter rapins, and draw in our heads at the approach of danger. It is idle mockery to send out your squadrons to SCOUT the Pacific and Me- di.erranean, when your whole commerce in those regions, including Peru, Chili, the Phi lipine Island, Africa, Turkey, and the Levant, does not exceed S3,000,000, and while you are destroying a commerce of fifty times the value, which requires no fleets to protect 1t. Against whom is a navy required to defend our Atlantic Commerce. Against pirates Against foreign powers? Against Great Brit for she is the raw-head and bloody-bones al- ways invoked to silence opposition to waste ful expenditure As producer of the great staple on which it is mainly founded, 1 de- clare with all solcmnity, that l regard the Congress of the United States, as it has been constituted for the last twenty years, as more to be dreaded than all the powers of Europe combined, and all the pirates that ev- CT infested the ocean.

 Another argument by which this system is attempted to be sustained is, that 1t furnishes to the farmer a market for his agricultural l recollect that when I, last year, urged against this system its tendency to enhance the price of commodities which enter into the general consumption of farm CTS, the senator from Maine, Mir. Evans re- piled, True, 1t enhances the money price ;- put the farmer would be more than imdemni- jed by getting market for productions which he could not sell at all.

 Now, this Is a sound argument as far as 1t E ,oes; but how far does it go? The manu- acturer furnishes a market for all the farm ITS within certain limits; but it is obvious hat the circle must be very small. As far IS it goes, it is mutual monopoly. No one ,an compete with either the farmer or the because the expense of trans ,ortation prevents it. The manufacturer leals with the farmer, because he takes from lim what he has to sell; and on the same principle the farmer deals with the manufac- urer So far, 1t is true, there is mutual benefit. But both parties can stand alone.- They are independent of government protec- ion. Each party furnishes the other the best market; and that is free trade. Upon this principle, the salt works of Virginia defy all al f, die