Indeed, Sir, it is a little astonishing, if it seemed convenient to Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of distinction, to make use of the terms “American policy” and “foreign policy,” that he should not have applied them in a manner precisely the reverse of that in which he has in fact used them.  If names are thought necessary, it would be well enough, one would think, that the name should be in some measure descriptive of the thing; and since Mr. Speaker denominates the policy which he recommends “a new policy in this country”; since he speaks of the present measure as a new era in our legislation; since he professes to invite us to depart from our accustomed course, to instruct ourselves by the wisdom of others, and to adopt the policy of the most distinguished foreign states,—­one is a little curious to know with what propriety of speech this imitation of other nations is denominated an “American policy,” while, on the contrary, a preference for our own established system, as it now actually exists and always has existed, is called a “foreign policy.”  This favorite American policy is what America has never tried; and this odious foreign policy is what, as we are told, foreign states have never pursued.  Sir, that is the truest American policy which shall most usefully employ American capital and American labor, and best sustain the whole population.  With me it is a fundamental axiom, it is interwoven with all my opinions, that the great interests of the country are united and inseparable; that agriculture, commerce, and manufactures will prosper together or languish together; and that all legislation is dangerous which proposes to benefit one of these without looking to consequences which may fall on the others.

Passing from this, Sir, I am bound to say that Mr. Speaker began his able and impressive speech at the proper point of inquiry,—­I mean the present state and condition of the country,—­although I am so unfortunate, or rather although I am so happy, as to differ from him very widely in regard to that condition.  I dissent entirely from the justice of that picture of distress which he has drawn.  I have not seen the reality, and know not where it exists.  Within my observation, there is no cause for so gloomy and terrifying a representation.  In respect to the New England States, with the condition of which I am of course best acquainted, the present appears to me a period of very general prosperity.  Not, indeed, a time for sudden acquisition and great profits, not a day of extraordinary activity and successful speculation.  There is no doubt a considerable depression of prices, and, in some degree, a stagnation of business.  But the case presented by Mr. Speaker was not one of depression, but of distress; of universal, pervading, intense distress, limited to no class and to no place.  We are represented as on the very verge and brink of national ruin.  So far from acquiescing in these opinions, I believe there has been no period in which the general prosperity