MR. CHAIRMAN,—­I will avail myself of the present occasion to make some remarks on certain principles and opinions which have been recently advanced, and on those considerations which, in my judgment, ought to govern us in deciding upon the several and respective parts of this very important and complex measure.  I can truly say that this is a painful duty.  I deeply regret the necessity which is likely to be imposed upon me of giving a general affirmative or negative vote on the whole of the bill.  I cannot but think this mode of proceeding liable to great objections.  It exposes both those who support and those who oppose the measure to very unjust and injurious misapprehensions.  There may be good reasons for favoring some of the provisions of the bill, and equally strong reasons for opposing others; and these provisions do not stand to each other in the relation of principal and incident.  If that were the case, those who are in favor of the principal might forego their opinions upon incidental and subordinate provisions.  But the bill proposes enactments entirely distinct and different from one another in character and tendency.  Some of its clauses are intended merely for revenue; and of those which regard the protection of home manufactures, one part stands upon very different grounds from those of other parts.  So that probably every gentleman who may ultimately support the bill will vote for much which his judgment does not approve; and those who oppose it will oppose something which they would very gladly support.

Being intrusted with the interests of a district highly commercial, and deeply interested in manufactures also, I wish to state my opinions on the present measure, not as on a whole, for it has no entire and homogeneous character, but as on a collection of different enactments, some of which meet my approbation and some of which do not.

And allow me, Sir, in the first place, to state my regret, if indeed I ought not to express a warmer sentiment, at the names or designations which Mr. Speaker[1] has seen fit to adopt for the purpose of describing the advocates and the opposers of the present bill.  It is a question, he says, between the friends of an “American policy” and those of a “foreign policy.”  This, Sir, is an assumption which I take the liberty most directly to deny.  Mr. Speaker certainly intended nothing invidious or derogatory to any part of the House by this mode of denominating friends and enemies.  But there is power in names, and this manner of distinguishing those who favor and those who oppose particular measures may lead to inferences to which no member of the House can submit.  It may imply that there is a more exclusive and peculiar regard to American interests in one class of opinions than in another.  Such an implication is to be resisted and repelled.  Every member has a right to the presumption, that he pursues what he believes to be the interest of his country with as sincere a zeal as any other member.  I claim this in my own case; and while I shall not, for any purpose of description or convenient arrangement use terms which may imply any disrespect to other men’s opinions, much less any imputation upon other men’s motives, it is my duty to take care that the use of such terms by others be not, against the will of those who adopt them, made to produce a false impression.