Mr. GARFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the committee to 2 or 3 points which have a bearing on this subject, and to give the reason why I hope we will not reduce the duty either on tea or cotfee. In the 1st place, it is the genius of our whole revenue system, and the experience of the government has approved it, that the best mode of raising revenue is to im ose duty upon the few est possible articles. 25 years ago in England there were more than 1200 ifferent articles on which duty was imposed, and now they have been so reduced that upon 5 articles more than 1/2 the revenues of that country are collected. In England, in 1865, $354,000,000 of revenue were raised, and of that sum $189,000,000 were derived from 5 articles, namely, fermented malt and spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, and tobacco and)sugar in their various forms. I say that those 5 articles afforded the Government of GreatBritain $189,000,000 of its revenue, the total ofwhich was $354,000,000. Thus almost 2/3rds of the revenue were raised on 5 articles and 2 of the 5 were coffee and tea. 22,500,000 dollars were raised in GreatBritain in the year 1805 on tea alone, and the consumtion of that article is steadily increasing in t iat country. It is now 2 and 7 10thsounds percapita of the population of Great Eritain, whereas in this country the consumption, though increasing, has reached only one pound er ca ita. I say, then, that we have no article which the experience of all financial nations shows can better bear the duty without reducin the consumption than ten. Furthermore, this is one of the few articles on which we can lo a duty without duplication of taxation and Without directly involving other interests. It is a simple and plain question of revenue. There is no other article into which it enters as an clement. I shall be sorry if we now add to the vote we have just east in regard that as we approach that system the prices of to coffee another which will take $4,000,000 i manufactures must be re need, and incomes more out of the Treasury. I shall be sorry if we thus show the country that we are having no regard for revenue. we are raising revenue h this bill as well as protecting industry, and trust that we shall not be guilty of the folly of reversing the whole policy of this country, and ignoring the expe rience of the leading financial nations of the world, by reducing this duty only to add an equal amount to a score of other interests not so well able to bear it. [Here the hammer fell.]