The value of the Indian rupee has gone up, and, as a consequence, English merchants get less wheat for a rupee than formerly. In the discussion of that bill it was insisted by the monometallists that only by an international arrangement could the imperial power of London to fix not only the price of our silver bullion, but also of all our commodities, be broken, but the result of this legislation is rapidly showing that this is not so. The English secretary of agriculture, in a recent speech, referred to the significant advance in the price of farm products throughout the world, and attributed the same to the recent advance in the price of silver, and this latter he very properly attributed to the late legislation on silver by the American Congress. The fact is, this legislation has been, and will continue to be, not merely national, but international and world-wide in its salutary influence and effect. No longer will London fix the price for us; no longer will her financiers regulate and fix the price of our wheat and cotton, but we ourselves will in the future, if we are true to ourselves, fix the price of all these commodities, and this, too, at living rates, by such determined, resolute, and stalwart action as we may take in Congress from time to time. Mr. REAGAN. Mr. President, I have listened with much interest to the elaborate and able argument of the honorable Senator from Oregon [Mr. MITCHELL], which had for one of its principal objects to establish the doctrine that Congress has power to pass a protective as contradistinguished from a revenue tariff for the purpose of regulating trade and industries. I beg to call attention to the purpose indicated by the argument, to regulate trade and industries. The constitutional provision on this subject is section 8 of Article I: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. There the power to lay duties is given, and the purpose for which it is given is specified. That purpose is specified to be to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." As I shall attempt to show, the Federal Government is one of limited and delegated powers. As indicative of that I read the tenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I will look further at that question after a moment. What is to be the effect of a recognition of the doctrine that by act of Congress we are to regulate the trade and industries of the United States? If we do that as indicated in the debates as one of the purposes of the bill under consideration, we propose to regulate the prices of commodities and the price of wages; we propose to assume a position which enables Congress to declare what industries shall be prosperous and what shall bear the burden of the prosperity of others; we propose to assume eminently and essentially the position of a paternal government controlling the domestic, the commercial, and all other industrial interests of the country. Mr. President, reference was made by the honorable Senator from Oregon to the impoverished condition of the American States immedi ately succeeding the Revolution, and, as I understood his argument, this was attributed to the practice of free trade. Mr. MITCHELL. I had reference to the impoverished condition after the formation of the new Government of the Confederation and during the six years between that date and the time of the formation of the Constitution. I insist that by reason of the fact that there was no power in Congress to regulate trade with foreign nations, and that that power was confined alone under the Articles of Confederation to the States respectively, the country was flooded with foreign importations to such an extent that ruin stared the people in the face from one end of the land to the other, and that very fact, the lack of power on the part of Congress under the Articles of Confederation to restrain this trade and protect their own industries, more than any other cause, led to the formation of the new Constitution. Mr. REAGAN. Mr. President, I said that the chief object of the transition from the Articles of Confederation to a constitutional Government was to enable Congress to regulate commerce between the States and with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes; but I do not concede that that fact is to be used as an argument to establish the proposition that Congress shall regulate trade and industries with a view to benefiting whom they please and to the injury of whomever may fall in the way of their policy. When it is remembered that the American colonies preceding the war of the Revolution suffered much from the paternal legislation of Great Britain fostering the industries of that part of the empire at the expense of the colonies, instead of that being an argument in favor of the proposition of the Senator from Oregon it is a warning against the application of a like doctrine as between the American States. The prevention of the colonies from manufacturing, in order to give the profits of manufacturing to Great Britain, and the cramping of the energies of the colonies in various ways, in order to prevent their growth and the assertion of their power, was that sort of government which was not restrained by a written constitution intended to protect minorities, but it was the result of the policy of a monarchy determined to maintain the interests of the people of the home Government as far as might be, at the expense of the colonies, legislating for the purpose of benefiting the interests of one class of people against another class of people in the British Empire and another class of interests. Then succeeding to the poverty which resulted from the policy of the British Government came the Revolutionary war, which exhausted to the last degree the resources of the people of the American colonies. Seven years of wasteful war, with no accumulated capital in the beginning, wasted the little substance of the people until, when independence was achieved, the people found themselves utterly impoverished, and they then had a struggle to meet as great as the one which they had met in achieving their independence-that of restoring the industry and the prosperity of the American States. They adopted first the articles of confederation. Those were found insufficient. They afterwards made the transition from the confederation to our present constitutional government. In that constitutional government they gave the Federal Government the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes, for a very important reason, different from that suggested by the argument of the honorable Senator from Oregon. It was for the purpose of preventing hostile legislation by one State against another; it was for the purpose of giving uniformity to the regulation of commerce; for the purpose of preventing strife between the States; for the purpose of preventing the seaboard States from holding the interior States at their mercy with reference to internal and commercial policy. These were the reasons which in part induced the conferring upon Congress of the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, and it was not for the purpose of enabling Congress to regulate trade and industries within the several States. Mr. President, while Congress has power to levy import dues as a means of procuring revenue for the support of the Government, the very fact that it may do so incidentally furnishes protection to American products which come in competition with those which may be imported from abroad. This mode of taxation was adopted then and is preserved now as a mode of indirect taxation and a means of raising money in a way that the people do not seem to understand that they are contributing to the support of the Government, and because of the fact that to raise money by direct taxation for the support of the Government would have imposed a burden upon them that it was probable then, and as it would be probable now, would be resisted. If we can disregard the provisions of the Constitution, if it is true that we have a Government which can regulate trade and commerce, what becomes of that great distinction in the constitutional interpretation which leaves the local and domestic interests of the country in the hands of the people and of the several States? What becomes of those great and universal laws of trade and commerce which leave all men free or ought to leave all men free in the prosecution of their proper pursuits subject to such competition as may arise in trade? If we would respect the provisions of the Constitution, if we would respect individual and property rights, if we would allow the people to stand in relation to the Government of all having the same protection and none having exclusive privileges, is it not to be seen that we should have a contented and happy people, a people loving their Government because of its justice? On the other hand, if we are to give the Constitution the construction which will enable Congress to regulate trade and industries, which will enable Congress to levy high duties on imports of one kind for the protection of domestic fabrics and impose thereby burdens on the part of the community which consumes those fabrics, is it not certain that the people will feel the wrong, will know the wrong, will know the oppression, and will feel that they have an unjust Government, a Government which can not command their respect and confidence? Wise statesmanship, it seems to me, would look to a question like this and would look to a policy of impartial justice as between all the people of this Government so that each citizen might have the proud consciousness within him that he stood on equal terms with all other American citizens, and that no other man is by partial and unjust laws given advantages which are denied to him, that no man is entitled to appropriate his property by a transfer by law for the benefit of the person in whose interest the legislation was enacted. It was stated by the honorable Senator that the change to the constitutional Government from the Confederation was dictated by the necessity of making such regulations as he advocates. Mr. President, it was, as I have stated, an incident to that change that the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes should be conferred upon Congress. But I sub mit that the great object of establishing the Constitution of the United States was higher and nobler and holier than a mere commercial regulation. I submit that it was "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosterity.' The great object of it was to secure liberty, equality of right and justice between man and man, and not to establish a Government which should rob one part of the American people to enrich another part of the American people. Mr. MITCHELL. May I ask the Senator a question right there? Mr. REAGAN. Certainly. Mr. MITCHELL. The Senator disputes the power in the Constitution to levy any customs excise for the purpose of protecting American industry or American labor, but he concedes the right, I suppose, under the Constitution, to lay imposts for the purpose of raising revenue. Now, suppose he had his way about it and was getting up a bill for the purpose of raising revenue only, on what classes of foreign products would the Senator impose those duties? Would he impose them on those articles which are not raised in this country, or on articles which are raised in this country? Mr. REAGAN. On that subject I beg to say that I shall speak for myself and nobody else. If I had the power to regulate duties on imports, I would make ad valorem duties. Mr. MITCHELL. That is not the question. That relates to the method. The question is upon what class of articles; that is to say, would the Senator impose the duties on those articles the like of which we do not produce in this country, or would he impose them upon those articles the like of which we do and can produce in this country? Mr. REAGAN. If the object of the Senator is to ask me if I would agree to discriminating rates of duties, I tell him no, I would not so far as I am concerned. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President Mr. REAGAN. Now, if the Senator will allow me-I was right in the midst of a statement-I would, if I had the power to regulate the import duties, levy an ad valorem tariff. I would levy a duty on sugar and coffee and tea, the same as on woolen goods, cotton goods, and iron and steel goods, and let them pay their proportion of the duty. I would levy a tariff for revenue for the support of the Government, and would not attempt to use the powers of the Government by Congress to enrich the party who had control of the Government. Mr. MITCHELL. Now, if the Senator would lay a tax, as he calls it, an impost, to raise revenue only, would he not very naturally, that being the sole object, simply to raise the revenue, would he not aim to impose that duty upon those articles which are not produced in this country, so as to get the greatest possible amount of revenue from the least possible rate of tax? Mr. REAGAN. I have answered the question the Senator asked me by saying that I would, if it were in my power, levy an ad valorem tariff. We see the effect of a large free-list. Every time we propose to increase duties for the protection of manufacturers, we propose to enlarge the free-list to reduce their expenses on one hand while we increase their profits on the other. Mr. MITCHELL. If the Senator will allow me now, what would the Senator put upon the free-list? Mr. REAGAN. I would have no discrimination. I would collect the revenue to support the Government on products that would yield a revenue as well as on those that give incidental protection. Mr. MITCHELL. Would the Senator permit raw material to come in free of custom rates-any raw material at all? Mr. REAGAN. I would permit raw material to come in, and perhaps I ought to qualify what I have said by remarking that I would do so on the condition that the duty on the manufactured product should be lowered in proportion to the advantages obtained from the receipt of raw material free of duty. Mr. MITCHELL. Then the Senator would levy discriminating duties, and he would have a free-list after all? Mr. REAGAN. As I have suggested. Now, if the Senator from Oregon is through with his catechism, I should like to go on with my remarks. Mr. MITCHELL. I do not wish to be rude, of course. Mr. REAGAN. I have rarely seen an occasion on this floor, unless there was some special request, when suggestions were being made that are bringing points home that whoever was making them was not interrupted by repeated catechism, either relevant or irrelevant. Mr. MITCHELL. Will the Senator yield to me a moment? Mr. MITCHELL. I am not feeling particularly hurt by anything the Senator has said, as far as that is concerned, but I was really anxious to know a certain thing, and I put the question in all sincerity to the Senator; and I do not think, notwithstanding the Senator's protestation to the contrary, he has yet answered it. My question was this: Would he or would he not, in imposing his tariff rates simply for the purpose of revenue only, levy them on articles which are produced in this country or on articles which are not produced in this country? Mr. REAGAN. I suppose I shall be obliged to answer the Senator again. L have told him that I would levy a duty on tea and coffee and sugar, as I would upon iron and steel and cotton and woolen goods. Mr. MITCHELL. Now, one other question: Holding to the view the Senato does, that the only power there is is to levy a tariff for revenue merely, would he not naturally and logically, carrying out that view, aim to impose the tariff solely upon those articles of foreign importation the like of which we do not produce in this country, and therefore in that way would he not add to the consumers of this country the price of the tariff? Mr. REAGAN. I do not know that I understand that question. Mr. MITCHELL. I will repeat it again. The question is this: It seems to me that the logical conclusion of the Senator's view would lead him in imposing a tariff for revenue only to impose that tariff solely upon foreign articles of importation the like of which we do not produce at all in this country, in order that he might obtain the greatest amount of revenue from the least amount of duty, and in that event, of course, the consumer would be compelled to pay the whole amount of the duty. Mr. REAGAN. I listened to the argument of the Senator from Oregon for two hours and a half with patience, and there were many places where I might have desired to interrupt and propound interrog |