l animosities, for the exuberance of our harvests and the
triumphs of our mining and manufacturing industries, for the
prevalence of health, the spread of intelligence and the conservation
of the public credit, for the growth of the country in all the
elements of national greatness--for these and countless other
blessings--we should rejoice and be glad. I trust that under the
inspiration of this great prosperity our counsels may be harmonious,
and that the dictates of prudence, patriotism, justice and economy
may lead to the adoption of measures in which the Congress and the
Executive may heartily unite."

The report of the Secretary of the Treasury emphasized and elaborated
the recommendations of the President.

The real cause of the delay of the Senate at the previous session,
in acting upon the internal revenue bill, was the desire to await
the action of the tariff commission appointed under the act approved
May 15, 1882. To secure a comprehensive scheme of taxation it was
necessary to include in a revenue bill duties on imported goods as
well as taxes on internal productions. The members of the tariff
commission appointed by the President, and who signed the report,
were John L. Hayes, Henry W. Oliver, A. M. Garland, J. A. Ambler,
Robert P. Porter, J. W. H. Underwood, Alexander R. Boteler, and
Duncan F. Kenner. These gentlemen were of high standing, representing
different parts of the country, of both political parties, and
notably familiar with our internal and external commerce and
productions. In their report they said:

"In performance of the duty devolved upon them, all the members of
the commission have aimed, and, as they believe, with success, to
divest themselves of political bias, sectional prejudice, or
considerations of personal interest. It is their desire that their
recommendations shall serve no particular party, class, section,
or school of political economy."

They transmitted their report to the speaker of the House of
Representatives on the 4th of December, 1882. It was a clear and
business-like statement of their action, accompanied with schedules
of duties on imported goods recommended by them, with suggested
amendments to existing customs laws, with testimony taken by them,
and with tables and reports covering, in all, over 2,500 printed
pages. It was by far the most comprehensive exposition of our
customs laws and rates of duty that, so far as I know, had been
published. It was