Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-02-19
House of Representations.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1S.-The motion to pro-
ceed to business on the House calendar, for the
purpose of taking up the Fitz John Porter
bill, was defeated, 141 to 117.
The following Democrats voted with the
Republicans in the negative: Blount, Bouck,
Davidson, s. c., Dunn, FELTON,, Mills,
Stephens, Stephenson and Whitthorne.
The bill passed constituting Atlanta port
of delivery.
the family of the late Mr.. Farr the balance
of salary which would be due him as men,
Der of the Forty-SiXth Congress, and request
ing the Forty-Seventh Congtess to appropriate
s., ZOO, which salary would be due him as
member of that Congress. Adopted.
The House then went into committee of the
whole on the agricultural appropriation bill.
Mr.. Hurd gave notice that he would offer an
amendment providing for statistics and sub
ordinate officers in the agricultural depart
ment, and requiring that officers make report
as to the effect the customs revenue laws
would, if continued in force, have hereafter on
the agricultural people of the country.
Whether the effect of such laws has been to
increase or diminish the price of American ag-
ricultural products in;foreign markets, what
effect they have had on the price of clothing
and agricultural tools in this country, and
whether or not the wages of farm laborers,
and the profits in agriculture have been affected
by such laws, and if so, in what way, and to
what extent.
Mr.. Hurd said the present tariff was levied
on over four hundred articles on the ground
that American industry should be protected.
A tariff for revenue he didn't oppose, and he
would be willing to support such tariff, not
withstanding there might be some incidental
protection, but to tariff levied for protection
only he was opposed. Protection rested on
three propositions. First, it created favor
able balance of trade, and that the excess of
exports over imports was for the benefit
of the country. Second, protection made the
nation independent of all other nations; and,
third, protection increased an amount of labor;
that increase of labor added to the wealth of
the country. These propositions he denied.
Restriction on trade was the great cause of
war. That nation was most Independent
which knew most of the world and availed it.
self of all the products of the intellect and
skill of all nations on earth. He
denied the proposition that an increase in the
amount of labor added to the wealth of
the country Men didn't labor because they
wanted to, but in order to get enough to sup
port them. The wealth of nations did not de-
pend on the labor done, but on the value of
that labor 1t was claimed protection would
develop the resources of the country. 1t
could not develop the resources until it had
increased the aggregate profits OF the country,
and it could not increase the aggregate profits
because it could not increase the dlsposable
capital The only effect ofprotection, he assert
ed, was to take money from thepockets of one
man and put it in the pockets of another.
Protection compelled the consumer to pay
more for goods than they were worth ordinar
lily to help the producer. He instanced in this
connection the one article of paper, for which
the consumer paid S15, 900, 900 more annually
than he would have to pay if protection was
taken off. This was tax on intelligence, and
forerunEer of ignorance. A protective tariff
confined manufacturers to the American mar