had participated
in framing all the former revenue laws since 1858, but as to this
bill I had only done what I thought was my duty in keeping pace
with the labor of the sub-committee, and in examining the bill as
far as I could consistently with other duties, and giving my judgment
upon its details whenever I thought it necessary.

My speech was turned into a colloquial debate by the interruptions
of several Senators, among whom were Gray, Carlisle, Gibson and
Paddock, but this enabled me to meet the chief objections to the
conference report. More than four-fifths of the provisions of the
bill, as reported by the conference, were precisely in the language
of the bill as passed by the House. The residue was chiefly taken
from the Senate bill, fully discussed in the previous session.
The rates of duties must necessarily be changed from time to time
to meet the change in prices, the course and balance of trade, the
relative amounts of exports and imports, and the amount of revenue
required. These changes are rapid and unforseen, so that under
any system of taxation the revenue may rise or fall, whatever may
be the rates of duty or taxes. Parties and politicians, in defining
their political creeds, talk about a tariff for revenue and a tariff
for protection. These are misleading phrases, for every tariff
for revenue imposed on any imported article necessarily protects
or favors the same article produced in the United States, which is
not subject to the tariff tax.

The real struggle in tariff legislation is one of _sections_, or,
as General Hancock truly said, it is "a local question." The
Republican party affirms that it is for a protective tariff. The
Democratic party declares that it is for a tariff for revenue only;
but generally, when Republicans and Democrats together are framing
a tariff, each Member or Senator consults the interest of his
"deestrict" or state. It so happens that by the constitutional
organization of the Senate, two sections have an unequal allotment
of Senators in proportion to population. The New England States
have twelve able and experienced Senators, with a population,
according to the census of 1890, of 4,700,745, or one Senator for
less than 400,000 inhabitants. The nine states west of the Missouri,
commonly classified as the silver or western states, have eighteen
Senators, with a population of 2,814,400, or one Senator for less
than 160,000 inhabitants. This representation in