I am impressed by the enormous wealth of the United States, but the feature which has least captivated me is that represented by the surplus. That capital has been withdrawn from the industrial movement, it has been paid by the products, thus becoming useless as a medium of exchange, and losing its circulating power in the commerce of the world. That the abundant surplus should have to be returned to the industrial font through the old channel of drawbacks would not be impossible.

I am glad the United States do not seek in the "Zollverein" the hoped-for solution, and I must believe that they entertain this idea, since General Henderson has signed the report of the majority rejecting the idea of a union; this accords me entire liberty of action to oppose it resolutely, without the respect I should have for it were it championed by our friend of the North.

The "Zollverein" would be powerless to increase our trade. Up to the present moment the agricultural industries have led in the field of the national wealth of the United States, since, by the census of 1880, the manufacturing interests represented a capital of only 23 per cent. of the former. Very well, agricultural products will never go in the direction of South America, because our countries raise and export them in their turn. The manufacturing industries are those that involve the future of our trade, and it is worthy of observation how they shrink and restrict themselves, attempting to keep within the limits of the national demand, doubtless because they fear the results in markets where free competition exists. The "Zollverein" would admit our raw materials free, but this is not the only problem to solve for industries. I will take the liberty to run rapidly over what is passing with those articles which would have the greatest circulation in our trade. I shall not speak of manufactures of iron and steel, because they already succeed in entering our markets, although with measured step. I should necessarily take into account those which do not reach us. These are the commodities which should claim our attention in order to induce them to come to us.

Cotton can not be freer, since it springs as an efflores

cence of this soil and is produced in marvelous quantiOf the 10,000,000 bales raised in the world the United States produce 7,000,000, or be it 3,080,000,000 pounds. It would be proper to suppose, under the circumstances, that the producing country would flood America and all the rest of the world with the manufactured product. What is the fact? That the home market weaves only 1,000,000,000 of pounds, and exports, in gross, 2,384,000,000 pounds, which go to feed the manufactories of the Old World. We thus see that while Great Britain carries to Brazil $14,115,000 worth of the article, the United States only sends $665,000 worth, less even than France, which sells $730,000 worth. In Venezuela, to an American exportation amounting to $498,000 there is one from the United Kingdom of $2,636,000. In the Argentine Republic, to an American exportation of half a million. there is one of $2,500,000 from France and $8,000,000 from England. To Mexico, where the product has the advantage of being interchanged between bordering countries, the United States carries only $1,000,000 worth as against $2,500,000 exported by Great Britain, and, to render this phenomenon more inexplicable still, the Treasury Department informs us that the New York custom-house received, in 1889, $27,000,000 worth of cotton goods manufactured in Europe.

It might be thought that this argument is hostile to the free admission of raw material, whose advantages I have indicated, but I am going to hurriedly analyze what takes place with another industry which works with taxed commodities-the manufacture of wool.

The exportation of these goods scarcely merits attention. In 1889 it reached only $350,000, and, according to data I have been able to collect from the books of the Treasury, the production, in 1880, reached the sum of $267,252,000. We do not know what results the new census will give us, but it is not to be doubted that the industry has been growing. The product, however, does not enter into foreign competition, and Europe enters the lists against it. within its own borders. The latter imported during 1882 $37,000,000 worth, and in 1889 the New York custom

house received woolen goods manufactured in Europe to the amount of $52,564,000. Whilst, then, the exportations of the United States of woolen goods has increased in eight years only $16,000, the European importation thereof into the United States has increased $15,000,000, according to statistics I have had before me. It can be seen, therefore, that if the free raw material makes a poor showing in the exportation of cotton goods, the taxed raw material shows discouraging figures, such as those constituting the balance in favor of the exports of Europe. If the invasion of manufactured articles from the Old World represented deficiencies in the home production, there could be no hope for exporting, because exportation does not spring from a lack of production, but rather from an excess. If the phenomenon be due to differences in the cost of production, as is my opinion and conviction, the English, French, German, and Belgian manufactures will continue to visit our marts, as they will continue to compete in the very markets of the United States, lightly vaulting the protective tariff.

The preference we ought to and wish to accord may be founded upon equality of cost and quality, but accorded to the dearest, it ceases to be a preference and becomes a sacrifice; and this is not a practice which merchants will indulge in, even though the article be American and the purchaser also.

The wool-grower is protected by a duty of 45 per cent., which reaches 60 per cent. as against the Argentine growers. The manufacturer pays without resistance, because he charges it to the consumer, and in turn enjoys a protection of 25 per cent. on his manufactures. So long as the exchanges are made in the home market the values maintain a proportional relation and the consumer pays all; but when the article crosses the frontiers and meets with similar articles introduced by Europe, the manufacturer encounters the 45 per cent. he has paid the producer, and appreciates the absence of 25 per cent. which protected his fabric. Then competition becomes impossible, under the nostalgic influence of national tariffs and the firm resistance of foreign consumers.

We must find the obstruction to our trade in that double protection which has increased the expense of production by raising wages, and in the heavy duties on raw materials as on other accessories to manufacture. The atmosphere in which the manufacturer lives, with wages 50 per cent. higher than those of Europe, but without increasing the purchasing power of the wages, is a fruitful source of burdens, and we must estimate it as considerable when it makes itself felt in so eloquent a manner through mechanical improvements, which are displacing the human machine to the degree of reducing the labor of man to 10 per cent. of that of machinery.

Suppose now that through the action of the "Zollverein" the manufacturers of the United States worked with our raw materials, still maintaining their tariff against Europe, would they banish her from our markets if we maintained a maximum of 10 per cent. or raised it to 15, 20, or 25 per cent., if you will, against Europe?

The United States would always be at a disadvantage in the competition because of protective duties maintained against the other continent. The scale of prices of the commodity would be somewhat reduced, and, in entering our markets free, it would enjoy as against Europe a difference of 15 or 20 per cent., which the latter would have to pay us; but why would not France and England pay it when they enter this market under a burden of 45 and 60 per cent., and when the American manufacturer sells in his own market without freight or insurance? This point reached, it is advisable to make some explanations.

The honorable Delegate from the United States, my particular friend Mr. Flint, has asserted in a speech of a semi-official character that 80 per cent. of the commodities entering these custom-houses are admitted free of duty. I make no correction but I ignore up to this moment what is wished to be proved thereby. Is it, perchance, the liberality of the tariff? The argument would be lacking in force, because it is clear that what is introduced is what is least taxed or what is not taxed in any way. I judge the tariff in relation to values, and, limiting ourselves to the commerce of America here represented, I furnish him this

other fact taken from the report of the Treasury: of $18,000,000 introduced by America subject to duties, it collects $10,647,000, or 56 per cent. With respect to South America the result is still more unfavorable, because on $11,800,000 subject to duty it collects $9,355,000, or nearly 80 per cent. on the value. It can be seen, therefore, that the 80 per cent. of which Mr. Flint speaks referring to free articles, is converted into 80 per cent. of duties on dutiable commodities entering from South America. Thus are the trade relations of South America with North America, forced to pay double what is paid by the general or European commerce, as can be easily proven of $741,000,000 imported, $256,000,000 enter free and $484,866,000 pay duty; it results, then, that 35 per cent. enters free and 65 taxed. The revenue derived amounts to $220,576,000 and, therefore, there is a tax of 45 per cent. upon dutiable goods. This duty, which has not been sufficient to deter European importation, would maintain upon the cost of production. the same inconveniences we to-day feel. The product would be an androgynous commixture, it would be half taxed and half free, but always impotent to compete with full liberty.

I find that the unalterability of the tariff is an unsurmountable obstacle in the way of our trade, and even when the league would wish to make exceptions which should take into account the autonomy of the custom-houses of the North with respect to Europe, forming a "Zollverein" with the head of a giant, we would not succeed in increasing the interchanges, this will come forth strong and robust when protection shall have exchanged its tariff for the maxim of Guarey: laissez faire, laissez passez.

Considering the "Zollverein" under its political aspect it would be difficult not to recognize that it involves great sacrifices of sovereignty which would not be counterbalanced by any visible advantages. An international diet would substitute the legislative bodies of the State, to establish or regulate the custom revenues within the national territory. Among us, as in the United States, this right is vested exclusively in the Federal Congress, the true representative of the sovereignty delegated by the people.