them to direct or control our manufactures and other industries in time of peace."

Great Britain built up her commercial prowess and certain branches of manufacturing by means of the most oppressive and iniquitous system of restriction ever known. Her old navigation laws are familiar to all. In early times she observed that Continental nations were manufacturing woolen fabrics in great quantities and growing rich, although purchasing their wool in England.

Thereupon the English enacted interdictory laws against the exportation of wools, declaring the penalty of death against certain violations of them. At the same time she invited the Lombards, who were skilled weavers, over to make cloth in England.

It was also made a penal offense for a corpse to be buried in a coffin not lined with wool.

What was the result? Every stone of wool grown in England was made into cloth or otherwise consumed at home, and the business of manufacturing woolen cloths became extensive and prosperous, though at tremendous cost.

Upon all fabrics and wares manufactured in the United States are paid various taxes, and also taxes upon the factories themselves.

Laborers are employed to build those factories, to transport the raw material, to manufacture that material, to produce it, and in various ways, directly and indirectly, to store, handle and sell the finished goods; and all the money paid to the workmen or for raw material and finished articles, goes to our friends and neighbors-is kept at home. This can not be true when we purchase in Great Britain. We then drain our purses for the benefit of British masters and merchants.

America is compelled to support a certain number of factories. Should they be located in America or Great Britain?

A pound of cotton or wool will produce just as much and just as good cloth in the United States as in England. By what means, then, can England buy our cotton, transport it in her own ships to English factories, manufacture it into fabrics and ship it back and sell it to us at the same rate as is charged for home-made articles?

By an oppressive system of low wages. There can be no escape from this conclusion. Taxes and insurance are lower in England than America, it is true, but these are insignificant items, having little or no effect upon wages.

To do what we have just mentioned, the cost of transporting the cotton from America to England, the seaman's wages, the ship-company's profits and the cost of sending the fabrics back to America in a similar manner, must all be taken out of the salaries of the operatives. What wonder, then, that dissatisfaction and poverty are widespread in the manufacturing districts of Great Britain? What wonder that thousands leave the "bright little tight little island" for America. every year?

A large number of Democratic statesmen, so-called, hold that Congress has no authority to lay a tariff that will "protect" or build up our manufacturing interests. This sophis

tical argument is precisely like that used by Judge Black and President Buchanan in 1860, when they invited secession by declaring that Congress had no power of self-preservation, no means of self-defense.

Congress has the power, unquestionably, to do whatever tends to promote the well-being of the nation; and especially rightful authority to protect the people from foreign enemies as well in times of peace as times of war. A nation, like an individual, has a right to protect itself against a peaceful thief as well as against an armed and aggressive foe.

But the question of the constitutionality of a protective tariff does not rest merely on sound logic and common sense. The convention that gave us the Constitution itself was called

chiefly for the very purpose of establishing power which did not exist in the Articles of Confederation, namely, to lay a general protective tariff.

By the treaty of Paris, England had withdrawn her armies and war-ships, but the assaults of her tradesmen and manufacturers were even more disastrous than had been those of her armies. Her tradesmen were successful where her armies had failed. A new Constitution was framed, therefore, for the purpose of resisting the new form of attack invented by our British foes. To claim, then, that it is unconstitutional to do the very thing the Constitution was framed to do, is too preposterous for serious debate. It is worthy of its source-the free-trade Democracy.

Even the most hair-brained free-trader declares he would not have free-trade come on "at once, but gradually." What does he admit by this? That the business interests must certainly suffer by the inauguration of his policy of freetrade, but that if it can be brought on "gradually," those interests will probably not be entirely destroyed.

In other words, to deprive a workman at once of food and drink will result fatally; while, by bringing him down step by step from abundance to scarcity, he will at last be able to actually drag himself along for years on bread and water, or, if he die, he will die so slowly that the result can not be called instant and cold-blooded murder, but simply death from starvation.

If a thing is good, why not have it at once? There are those who, like the "gradual" free-traders, believe that in amputating a dog's tail, it inflicts less pain to cut off an inch at a time every ten days than to sever the entire appendage at once. But the dog loses his tail nevertheless. The result is the same by either method. So with free-trade, "gradual” or abrupt.

Therefore, as long as our raw materials are abundant and our population on the increase, a curse will fall on the party

that shall inaugurate a system of absolute free-trade in America, whether precipitately or gradually.

CHAPTER XXXI.

SECTIONALISM-SOUTHERN SENTIMENT.

Difference Between the Solid South and the Solid North-"The Republic of Republics"-The North, Not the South, Guilty of Treason-Defense, Not Assault, is Crime-Southern Utterances-"The Confederacy Still Exists and Jeff. Davis is Still Our President"Hatred of the Union-Soldiers' Pensions-The South Complains of Their Payment-Jeff. Davis Speaks-The "Lost Cause" Still Right-How to Teach Treason to Children-Is There Any Danger in Keeping the South Out of Power Yet Longer-Material Condition of the Late Slave States-Captain Gillespie's Wish-Excursion Tickets for Southern Democrats-Sentiment of the NorthNot Reciprocated by the South-What the Cotton States Might Be-Opportunities for Profitable Investment-Why They Are Unoccupied-Transfiguration of Atlanta and Chattanooga.

For twenty-five years one of the favorite charges against the Republican party has been that it is "sectional." If the charge is true, then the Democratic party is also sectional. One represents the solid South, and the other the solid North. History tells us plainly what the country was under the rule of Southern sectionalists, and the growth and progress of today show with equal plainness what it is under the rule of Northern sectionalists.

Whenever the solid North shall go out of Washington, the solid South will go in. Before making such a change, should we not find out whether the Southern Democrat is the same old Democrat we saw go out in 1860?

Southern journals and orators, headed by Jefferson Davis, continue to declare that the late war settled no principles, "but merely demonstrated that the South was weaker than the

North; and, as Judah P. Benjamin said, that "the movement was simply premature."

"The Republic of Republics," the most elaborate and vehement of all the works justifying the principles of secession and nullification, recently published and occupying a prominent place in all Southern libraries, believes that the Rebellion did not save the Union, but "rather insured its ultimate destruction." It repeats Burke's warning to Great Britain, predicts the destruction of the Republic and says the idea that "naked majorities of all the States acting as a unit shall rule, is a factitious and fraudulent change," brought about "by perversion, fraud and perjured usurpation."

This book also declares the remarkable doctrine that no citizen owes any allegiance to the United States, only to the State in which he resides; that Davis and Lee were not and could not be guilty of treason against the United States, because there is no such thing, and that "the treason clause of the Constitution is just as applicable to a citizen fighting for the Union against a State, as it for fighting any other assailant" of that State.

Having established, by declaration, adjectives and exclamation-points, that Davis and his followers were not and could not be guilty of treason, Chapter IV of this remarkable volume is devoted to proving that the crime of treason was perpetrated by the North in defending the Union when it was fired upon by the South. Its more exact definition, however, is, that whoever clings to the Union in a State that secedes, is guilty of treason, and the citizens of States which do not secede but attempt to prevent the secession of other States, "are guilty of a federal crime but little less atrocious than treason."

Applied to every-day affairs, this doctrine would attach the crime of murder to the person killed and to any one who attempted to prevent the killing, as well as to the constable, jurymen, prosecuting attorney or judge who might be called