easily the Pacific Mail Steamship Company could extend her line from Panama down the western coast, but the United States says to her, 'If you take that venture we will give you only the postage on the letters you carry, though these letters may lay the foundation for a great trade with the Republic of Peru.'

"We pay annually to foreign ships for carrying our mails $280,000. Why not do something for our own lines? Only $46,000 last year to our own steamship lines. We produce annually eight billions of manufactured goods, seven and a half billions of agricultural products; together, fifteen and a half billions, and we need a market for our surplus products. Where shall we find it? It lies at our very door. It is amazing to me that when a proposition is made to expend only $400,000 to existing lines connecting with Central and South America, with China and Japan, and to use another $400,000 to extend these lines and put on new ones that may serve to connect with other countries and open the ports of the Atlantic and Gulf States to the commerce of the republics of South America—it is amazing, I say, that gentlemen will resist it on either side of the House.

"What object is there in opening the Mississippi River at an expense of twenty, thirty, fifty millions of

dollars, and then permit the commerce she carries to be borne away under foreign flags? What statesmanship is there in this? What sense is there in expending $450,000 on the harbor of Galveston to give an outlet for commerce, and then say to American lines proposing to carry that commerce, 'We will pay only 5 cents, or the letter postage, for carrying the mails between that harbor and the ports of Central and South America'?

"It has been said this is in the interest of the steamship companies alone. That is not true. That it will advantage them no one can deny, but that they are the only parties to be benefited is wholly groundless. I hold in my hand the manifest of a single steamship, the Finance, of the Brazilian line, which sailed from New York on the 28th of February last. What cargo did she have on board? She had on

board, going from the United States to those South American countries, $250,000 worth of American goods, a quarter of a million dollars' worth of American products on one steamship going to the markets of Brazil. This is a matter that concerns the steamship companies alone? . .

"I hope this appropriation will be made. I hope my amendment will be adopted, allowing $400,000 to be used on the present lines, and authorizing the Postmaster-general to use the balance to extend those

lines and to put on new ones. I would not permit England to hold the markets of Mexico, Central and South America, if by paying a liberal compensation to American steamships for carrying the mails I could rescue them from her. This can be done, and by so doing we will reopen our mines, relight our furnaces, dispose of our surplus products, give employment to labor and investment to capital, and augment the prosperity of the Nation on the land and her prowess upon the sea."

By far the most important measure of the Fortyninth Congress was the establishment of a commission to enforce the Inter-state Commerce Act, which forbade discrimination in freight charges, pooling, and rebating. We should remember that Burrows, in 1874, was one of the first to expound the rights and limitations of Congress as applied to Inter-state Commerce.1 He was peculiarly fitted, therefore, to take part in this discussion, and contributed important data to the debate. In closing, he said: "It is well, in taking possession of this new field of National occupancy, that we move with extreme caution. are on the border of an unexplored territory, and every step is fraught with momentous consequences. Vast interests are involved. In redressing wrongs we must invade no right, and advance with such

1 See page 152.

We

prudence and consideration that in the end our National domination over this great question will be to all a National blessing."

The work of the Fiftieth Congress was comparatively unimportant, but the Mills Bill, which was proposed as the Democratic contribution to Tariff legislation, gave Burrows an opportunity to demonstrate his value to his Party and to establish himself as one of the foremost champions of Protection in the country. His speech against the Bill attracted National attention, and was considered so important a Republican document that over a hundred thousand copies were distributed as campaign literature. The nature of the Bill is explained and extracts from Burrows' speech are given in a later chapter.1

The Presidential campaign of 1888 made Tariff its main issue. The political effect of the Mills Bill proved to be far-reaching, and the country was thoroughly aroused from coast to coast. Tariff was the one topic of conversation, and for the first time the Parties were squarely aligned against each other upon this important subject. The Democratic Party wrote into their platform a specific endorsement of the Mills Bill, while the Republicans in their platform declared unequivocally, "We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American system of Protection. We protest

1 See Chapter VIII.

against its destruction as proposed by the President and his Party. They serve the interests of Europe; we will support the interests of America. . . . The protective system must be maintained. Its abandonment has always been followed by disaster to all interests except those of the usurer and the sheriff. We denounce the Mills Bill as destructive to general business, the labor and the farming interests of the country."

The campaign was bitterly fought between Harrison and Cleveland, and the Democratic candidate suffered from the fact that the public had become convinced that his Party was pointed towards Free Trade. In vain Cleveland protested that it was Tariff revision rather than Free Trade, but his statements were discounted by the over-enthusiasm of certain Democrats, particularly in the South, who made no attempt to conceal their satisfaction over the liberal doctrines he espoused. Harrison, in his letter of acceptance, stated that the campaign was between wide-apart principles rather than between schedules, and referred to those who believed in the Democratic contention that "the tariff is a tax," as "students of maxims, not of markets."

The Republicans won both in the Presidential and Congressional elections, and naturally accepted their victory as a definite verdict in favor of Protection.