that I was trying to press a vote without any reply being made, which would be entirely contrary to my wishes and entirely unfair. Therefore I suggest that we adjourn, and I make that motion, until to-morrow at the usual hour.

Mr. QUINTANA. I again insist on my motion to vote on this question. The motion of the honorable Mr. Estee leads to nothing advantageous in the end. Mr. Saenz Peña is not in Washington, but in New York; he will return, at the earliest, to-morrow and, perhaps, Mr. Henderson's speech will not even be translated, and even if it were, he could not reply from memory to statistical data. There is, therefore, no object in leaving this question pending until to-morrow, and if the vote is to be taken at the next session, it is preferable to take it now.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. President, I do not understand that my colleague, Mr. Estee, made any motion that the vote be taken to-day. He has so explained, and my understanding was that if any motion came from any United States delegate it would be simply upon the request of the honorable delegate from the Argentine. Of course we stand in this attitude so far as this matter is concerned; we are anxious to get through, but as long as the Argentine claims that it wants time to reply to anything that is said, or which may be said by any delegate from the United States, so far as we are concerned we shall vote as a unit to extend that time. We shall vote as a unit to give any time that may be required by any one.

Mr. TRESCOT. Mr. President, I for one am not willing to accept the proposition to take a vote at once. I do not propose to request of the Argentine delegation

my

to say that they will not make a reply, or will submit to a vote being forced upon them. I regret very much the course of this debate. I have had no opinion to express and have expressed none. I think the discussion between the Argentine delegation and friend Mr. Henderson has been a side issue and does not belong properly to the report, but the debate has taken place and I think that the honorable delegate from the United States was bound to reply to the speech of the delegate from the Argentine Republic; it is also the right of the gentleman from the Argentine to be heard before we take any action. I therefore move, in deference to the wishes of the Argentine delegation that this discussion be suspended until Thursday, so that the gentleman from the Argentine will have a chance to be heard.

It is better, now that the discussion has been entered upon, that both parties give their opinions upon the matter, and I hope that the debate will end satisfactorily. I do not see how Mr. Henderson gave any offense, but if the Argentine delegation desires to reply I do not see why they should not be heard. I therefore move that the matter be suspended until Thursday, and if at that time neither party desires to discuss the matter further, the vote can be taken.

The FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT. The honorable delegates have heard the motion to suspend this debate until Thursday next.

If there be no objection the motion will be considered as carried.

The Chair hears no objection.

The motion is carried, and pursuant thereto the discussion is laid over until Thursday next.

SESSION OF APRIL 10, 1890.

The PRESIDENT. The order of the day is the continuation of the debate upon the report of the Committee on Customs Union. What order will the Conference take?

Mr. SAENZ PEÑA. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I shall say but a few words in reply to the last speech of my distinguished friend General Hender

son.

In the course which this debate has taken it has lost its general character and the interest which it awakened in the nations of America. Since it has left two nations, or rather two tariffs, disputing with each other as to the spirit of liberality which inspires them respectively, I should not take too great advantage of the attention with which my distinguished colleagues have favored me, and shall limit myself to mere rectifications.

Mr. Henderson seems to object to the disagreeable comparisons between the tariff systems, and I must decline to be responsible for their having been compared. I was forced into undertaking it by the invitation of Mr. Flint, and it is therefore on his colleague that the blame should fall, which, however, seems to point towards me. As to the question of statistics, I should also make some explana

tions.

I have spoken of the commerce of the United States in relation to America, and Mr. Henderson argues with me on the figures of general commerce, which have not entered into my calculations except on par

563A-16

ticular occasions, and which are not concerned with the matter I have now in hand. With reference to these facts he brings up the tariffs of the United States, placing a duty on their trade only to the extent of 45 per cent., but it is this same proportion which contrasts it with the 80 per cent. levied on the importations from Central and South America. In that way the question is carried beyond the bounds within which it should be discussed by the honorable Conference, and applied to interests foreign to this continent and to the nations here represented. Let us for a moment look at the Argentine tariffs, since the comparison seems, in the present instance, to please the honorable delegate. I have here the statistics of the years 1887 and 1888, which give us this result:

We see, then, that in 1887 the dutiable articles have been subjected to a duty of 31 per cent., and in 1888, 32 per cent., which shows a notable difference when compared with the 45 per cent. levied on the United States' general commerce and the 80 per cent. with which the products of America are burdened.

These figures are taken from the official statistics of the Argentine Republic; those of 1887 are already in possession of the honorable delegate, as I have had the honor to send them to him privately, and those of 1888 are now here before me, and I place them at his disposal. I will state that I do not accept as authentic statistics those which are drawn from

articles published in the daily press, or from loose circulars issued anonymously.

The honorable delegate makes another calculation, taking as a basis the total free and dutiable importations, and arrives at the conclusion that the United States has levied a duty on them in 1889 of 29.75 per cent. On this he bases the assertion that the Argentine tariffs are higher, but I can prove to him through the same books that in 1887 we only reached 28.8 per cent., and in 1888 we had gone down to 26.9 per cent.

I have examined these statistics only to please my distinguished friend, and for the purpose of having it well understood that the Argentine customs have not amounted to the $51,000,000 that he supposes. But these facts prove nothing whenever we have to consider the tariffs with relation to America, and it is there that liberality leaves much to be desired. There is no necessity for me to repeat that goods from the United States enter our custom-houses with a duty of 5, 10, and 25 per cent., a substantial difference from the 80 per cent. levied here on the dutiable products of Central and South America.

The substantial difference in these tariffs is not exactly in the number of dutiable articles, but in the amount of the duty, which is heavy even to prohibition, on those articles which are the cause of domestic protection. Thus we see that the Argentine tariffs, with a greater number of dutiable articles (82 per cent.), bring in a revenue proportionately inferior to that received by the United States, with a fewer number of dutiable articles.

I, for my part, would prefer to end a debate which