Mr. MYERS. For the purpOSe of saying a few words in reply to the Gentfrom Ver mont, [Mr. Monaiuq] I move to amend my amendment by striking out the last word. Mr. Chairman, there is one part of the Gentlemans remarks which 1 can heartily nece t. I will not denythe beauty of my children. at I must say that I do not like to have their pho tographs defaced by ink marks which have been transferred to the face of the picture, as is the case with a photograph which I have now befOre me. I object to having the pictures of my children beautiful as the gentleman concedes they are thus disfigured. Nova, sir, on page 133 of this hill, just precedin the paragraph which my friend has quote, is another paragraph exempting from taxation “paintings an statues an groups of of statuary produced by artists as works of art. ” These photographs are essentially works of art, too; and were it not that the photographers are willing to pay a.propertax to the Government I would ask that they should be exempte altogether. But they have no such request to make. They only ask a modification of the law, by which they shall be relieved from that which is an inconvenience, vexation, and loss to themselves and the public who patronize them. Let me ive another reason why the amendment slon d pass and the taxation on this class of artists should be reduced somewhat, as is proposed. Within the last 4 or 5 years alcohol, sulphuric ether, acetic acid, and the other chemical materials used in the manufacture of photographs have advanced in price more than 250%. But the principal question is, shall we collect tax from these men in the objectionable shape of stamps, or impose an adualorem.duty upon the amount of their sales, trusting them to make properreturns, as we trust other classes of manufacturers? By imposin the advalorem duty and dispensing with the provision requiring stamps to be atlixed to these pliotograp s we reatly accommodate the public at large, whife we save the photographers from alarge annual loss; for in a package of pictures the face of one is placed against the back of the other, and thus the ink on the stamp as well as the stamp itself, as l have said, often defaces the picture. By an advalorem.tax the Government would realize its properamount of revenue; and certainly 5%. advalorem is a sufficient tax upon these pictures.