Perhaps I ought not to go further, yet I cannot forbear. In deference to my estimate of one of the purest men who ever sat in the American Congress I make a further observation. When this changed proposition-Frankford not Watervliet-came to the head of the Committee on Appropriations he saw in it only the mistaken estimate that local considerations might prevail over the interests and rights of the people, over wholesome and necessary legislation, and over just and proper expenditures. Whatever, therefore, may have been the motive of this Senate amendment made to the House bill in the Forty-ninth Congress, its author turned, to Watervliet and turned his back on unappreciative Frankford. Like a weary dove long on the wing, he finally lit, a wiser, perhaps a better, man. His fight is now located. Watervliet is the incident, the sale of five million dollars' worth of steel by some oversupplied baron the object.

Mr. CUTCHEON. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. BURNES. I cannot resist the gentleman from Michigan, and yield.

Mr. CUTCHEON. Did I understand the gentleman to say that it was Mr. RANDALL'S desire that these works should be located at the Frankford arsenal? Mr. BURNES. Of course you did not.

Mr. CUTCHEON. I so understood the gentleman.

Mr. BURNES. Nobody else did, I hope.

Mr. CUTCHEON. In the colloquy which occurred on this subject in the last Congress Mr. RANDALL said:

I wish to say, in reply to the insinuation of the gentleman from New York, and I appeal to my colleagues on the committee to substantiate my statement, that I never favored Frankford at all.

Mr. BURNES. Precisely; and I have been endeavoring to show that, even under the tempting bait of $126,000,000 proposed to be ultimately expended at Frankford, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations never wavered for an instant. Favors to his own State or people could not make him see as right that which his judgment taught him was wrong. I ask the clerk to read the Senate amendment to the fortification bill of the last Congress.

The clerk read as follows:

For the purchase, manufacture, and erection of the necessary tools and machinery for the finishing and assembling of heavy ordnance at the Frankford arsenal, Philadelphia, Pa., for guns in process of construction, gun-carriages, projectiles, fuses, powder implements, and materials for the trial and proof of such ordnance, and to complete the two 10-inch breech-loading steel guns now under fabrication, their trial and proof, and all necessary expenses incident thereto, including the compensation of draughtsmen on gun construction while employed in the Ordnance Bureau, $400,000; to be available until expended.

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Chairman, I ought not to leave this subject without saying that while I have done honor to the gentleman who is, perhaps, entitled to the chief honor in this matter, I should not omit rendering a just tribute to the other members of the Committee on Appropriations of both parties, who watched this proposed legislation closely throughout the whole of the Forty-ninth Congress, and who stood, I believe unanimously, against the Senate proposition and in favor of that of the House; and while I am not authorized to speak for them now, and

they are abundantly able to speak for themselves, I trust in God they will speak out, whether upon the one side or the other. I trust they will speak out and give the House to understand that they too have felt, as we have all felt, that this proposition of the Senate was a labored effort to accomplish an appropriation of more money than ought to be now appropriated for the purchase of steel rather than by a desire for the utilization of Watervliet, the utilization of Frankford, or the protection of the interests of the Government and the people of the United States. Mr. CUTCHEON. I want to ask the gentleman one more question.

Is it not

a fact that all three of the measures now under consideration, the Senate amendments, the fortification bill reported by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. SAYERS], and the Senate bill, all name Watervliet as the location? Is not that true? Mr. BURNES. I have not examined with reference to that subject. Mr. CUTCHEON. I have.

Mr. BURNES. I presume the gentleman has done so and that he states the truth about it. I am not speaking of the propositions now pending further than to say that they do not commend themselves to the judgment of the Committee on Appropriations, nor, as I believe, to the representatives of either party upon. that committee. Mere questions as to location should have no influence. The necessities, the practicable wants of the country as a whole should be the supreme consideration.

Mr. CUTCHEON. One more question. Is it not a fact that since the bill of the Forty-ninth Congress was before us a board has been appointed by the Secretary of War, known as the Flagler board, of which Colonel Mordecai was a member, and that that board recommended Watervliet ?

He

Mr. BURNES. I beg that the gentleman will not interrupt me further. has his own time. I care nothing for Watervliet, have no feeling against it. Mr. Chairman, I come to a consideration which I regard as of great importance, not only to this House, but to the people of the whole country.

In strict justice, perhaps, to myself I ought to say that I have no fear of the invasion of this country by any foreign foe. I have no apprehension; I see no necessity for the expenditure of $120,000,000 to $150,000,000 at this time for national defense, and therefore I am not in favor either of the one bill or of the other. I presume the majority of the Committee on Appropriations are in favor of some legislation in this direction, with which, however, I have never been able to agree. I do not believe in this legislation. I believe that it is partial legislation. I believe that it is the expenditure of millions of the people's money on account of an imaginary or pretended risk that a very few of the 60,000,000 of our people may incur. I can see why my distinguished and energetic friend from. the district of Troy may be alarmed, because he has Watervliet there to represent. I can understand that. I am sure that he feels an apprehension that an armed fleet from Great Britain or Germany or France will sail up the Hudson river into the heart of his district and lay his prosperous towns and cities under tribute. But I do not share the apprehension at all.

Yet, as was suggested by the distinguished gentleman from Maine [Mr. REED], there may be one chance in a thousand that we may have difficulty with some

foreign nation or may have a foreign war. Now, to meet that possible chance, are we to undertake the expenditure of a sum of money so vast as that proposed when the same amount would give us a navy that could command the oceans around the globe; or, what is more important still, could protect every mile of our seacoasts against the combined navies of the world? Already we are moving unitedly in this direction, and the present able administration of the Navy Department is alive to the safety, the defense, and the glory of our country and its flag. Shall we learn from a consideration of the fact that neither England, nor Germany, nor France, nor Russia, nor any other first-class power places any reliance upon an established manufactory of this sort? No one of those governments maintains such an establishment as is proposed in this bill. Why? Because Germany and the other European states prefer to leave this work to their Krupps and their other able and distinguished private citizens who, under proper support from the government, are making the very best guns in the world.

But we do not stop there. If any government of Europe, from which some of my friends may apprehend an attack, should attack us, what do we want more than terms of equality in the conflict? Those powers have no government big gun manufactory on which they mainly rely. Why shall we fear assault any more than they? Besides, we are in a condition of protection and defense fully equal to any What have we to fear?

of them.

Mr. CUTCHEON. They have the big guns, however.

Mr. BURNES. Yes, sir; and we are going to have the "big guns." We have the "big guns" now being made, and we have, furthermore, the very best establishment for that purpose in the world. I ask the clerk to read the paragraphs marked on pages 4 and 5 of the report of the present distinguished Secretary of the Navy, one of the ablest that has ever been at the head of that Department, and who enjoys the perfect confidence and esteem of the members of this House on both sides of that aisle.

The clerk read as follows:

The Navy Department had, in the summer of 1886, as an experiment, consolidated in one advertisement all of its requirements for armor and gun-steel for ships of war then authorized, stipulating that it should be of domestic manufacture and giving an average of two and a half years in which to produce and deliver it, which covered the time necessary for the procurement of a plant. A period of about seven months was allowed for the submission of bids, in order to afford an opportunity for full investigation by expected bidders. The Department also opened correspondence upon the subject with the principal steel manufacturers of the country. The interest awakened by the discussion and investigations already had was stimulated somewhat by the influence of the Department, and resulted, when the bids were opened, in a contract with the Bethlehem Iron Company, under which a plant for the production of armor and gun-steel is being erected at Bethlehem, Pa., second to none in the world, it is believed. (Appendix, page 459.) The efforts of the Department were generously seconded by the Naval Appropriation Committees of the two Houses, the sum of $4,000,000 having been inserted in the appropriation acts for the purposes indicated.

The bids were opened on the 22d day of March last, and, coming at a time when the failure of Congress to make provision for the country's defense was being generally regretted, caused a feeling of quite universal congratulation throughout the country. It marked a most important step in the

progress toward national independence, most sincerely desired, it is believed, by the larger portion of our people.

*

*

*

*

*

In like manner the contracts for armor and gun-steel are made at prices within 25 per cent. of the European price for the similar article, not greater than the difference of labor between the two countries, notwithstanding the heavy outlay for plant (estimated at $2,500,000) necessary to be made to undertake the contract.

Mr. TRACEY. Will the gentleman allow me a word by way of correction? I presume he would not intentionally make a misstatement.

Mr. BURNES. Certainly I would not. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. TRACEY. It might as well be said here now that, so far from its being the fact that the European governments have no government gun factories, Germany is the only one that has none. England has its gun factory at Woolwich; France, an army gun factory at Bourges and a naval gun factory at Ruelle ; and Russia has at Obookhov a very large government gun factory.

Mr. BURNES. Mr. Chairman, a word will suffice on that point. England maintains just about such an establishment as ours at Watervliet; but England buys the Krupp and Armstrong guns from private parties. None of the governments mentioned rely upon their national establishments for big guns. That is enough for that.

Mr. Chairman, I recall with emphasis to the hearts and consciences of members on the other side and doubly so to those on this side of the House, that in this country, as the Secretary of the Navy tells us, private enterprise has established at Bethlehem, Pa., a plant for the making of these guns, which plant is the best in the civilized world. Not only that, but the guns can be made within 25 per cent. of the cost of the Krupp guns and other European guns; so that we can make these guns for less money than they are made in Europe, allowing for the difference between American and European wages.

Mr. CUTCHEON. The gentleman will allow me to say that Secretary Whitney does not propose to assemble and fabricate his guns at Bethlehem, but has a gun factory here in the District of Columbia where that is to be done.

Mr. BURNES. I wish I had some military prestige, as I would like to meet the gentleman upon equal terms. [Laughter.] It makes no difference whether the material only for the guns or the guns are made at Bethlehem or elsewhere.

Mr. TRACEY. Mr. Chairman

Mr. CUTCHEON. I do not suppose the gentleman wants to leave this matter under misimpression or misapprehension.

Mr. BURNES. I will make this statement and you can draw your own conclusions. I do not seek, of course, to make any misstatement or create a misimpression, but if there is any mistake it is by the Secretary of the Navy, for I adopt his own words; they are not my own so much as his. He tells you that American enterprise, American industry, American citizens, and American capital are now engaged in Bethlehem, Pa., with the prospect of creating the best establishment in the world, and of making guns within 25 per cent. of the guns in Krupp's works, and in other leading establishments in Europe.

Mr. CUTCHEON. And the gentleman ought to know that the steel forgings made there they propose to work up in the Government factory in the District of Columbia.

Mr. BURNES. I rely entirely on what the Secretary says, and which has been read from his report. Beyond that I am not informed as to the facts. Indeed, I do not care to look beyond the information possessed by a Secretary of the Navy who has our united and unreserved confidence.

Now, then, friends of American industry, American enterprise, American labor, and American principles-and I am one of them-will we put the Government into a controversy and competition with private enterprise and capital? Shall the Government turn manufacturer, farmer, mechanic, or laborer when our own citizens are so engaged? Must the Government turn competitor in industrial pursuits when her wants can be supplied by private enterprise, and when the only incentive seems to spring from the greed of somebody who desires to contract now for $5.000,000 of steel?

The rights and dignity of American labor are involved in this present proceeding. He who labors merely under the restraints and exactions of Government employment is shut out from the field of independent enterprise, and too often becomes a mere machine, dwarfed in both mental and physical force. A government should do nothing that private enterprise and labor can as well perform, and I hope the day is soon to come when American workingmen in American shops and field will supply their own Government and the governments of the earth with every article or commodity that their necessities may require. Especially do I hope that our own Government will cease enlarging its establishments, cease the spread of its paternal wings, and rely entirely upon our people for what it needs in peace or war, as it has to rely upon their courage and valor when the country is to be saved or defended.

Mr. CUTCHEON. Is not the gentleman aware of the fact that the Senate amendment proposes exactly what he suggests; that these products are to be manufactured in American establishments, in American shops, by American labor, except perhaps samples of high explosives?

Mr. BURNES. I say to the gentleman from Michigan that the Government should stand aloof, and let the people, let the private enterprise and the spirit of American industry and progress, have full play in the making of big guns as in the making of small-arms. Let the deathless spirit of our home labor, enterprise, and craft recreate our industrial pursuits and add to them every aid and incentive within the power of a just and equal government of the people.

Mr. CUTCHEON. We propose to manufacture the army guns just as the navy guns are now manufactured.

Mr. BURNES. You propose to do it by a Government establishment, over which the "popinjays" of the War Department will preside. You do not propose an opening of the doors to a full and free competition-citizen with citizenbut of the Government against all. American citizens, American capital, and American enterprise are incompetent to compete with the Government, especially for such things as the Government undertakes to manufacture.