Mr. FERRY. I move to amend the last paragraph just rOad by striking' out the words “ix dollars or less per 1,000 feet, one dollar per 1,000 feet; when valued at over 6 do lars and;” so that the paragraph will read as follows: On lumber. pine. ash, butternut, bass wood, birch, elm. maple, and white wood. round. split, or sided, 3/4ths ofone cent percubic foot; when hewn sq'pare, one and one 4th cent percubic foot; when sawed and valued at not over ten dollars per 1,000, twodollars per 1,000 feet; whenvalued at over ten dollars per 1,000. 3 dollars per 1,000 feet. Mr. Chairman, were I to consult my own judgment I should resist the advalorem method of duty, and insist upon a specific duty of 3 dollars per 1,000 bpon all lumber imported. But in eference to the judgmentof others who take an interest in this question, I have as sented to a modification and compromise with the ComWays&Means, and proposeto strike out the 6 dollar classification, caving the remainder of the para aph to stand as reported b the committee. t comes as near a specific duty as seems to be obtain able, and will make the duty on all lumber valued at not over ten dollars1,002 dollars, and on all over ten dollars a duty of 3 dollars per 1,000. Those who are 0 posed to this proposition claim, I suppose, that they wish the chea er lumber to be favored, while we on the other hand contend that the lower grades of lumber are in small part furnished by Canada and are an plied mostly by the States. The question, tierefore, resolves itself practically into one of revenue. Concurring,)y this amendment, with the remark of the distinguished chairman of the ComWays&Means that “the bill is framed to protect our internalrevenue and for no other purpose, ” I cannot believe that the committee will oppose us, and therefore invite them to support the proposition that is now made. I wish to call the attention of the committee to the fact that the price of lumber in the States has not been regulated by importations. Let me here quote a remark made by the chairman of the committee in March last, when we had under consideration the bill to regulate trade with the British Provinces. He said on that occa sio"n: When we abandonedall duties on lumber under the treaty, the ctfectwasnot to reducethepricein the | American market, but the value of lumberincreased in the Provinces.” When the treaty went into operation, it will be thus seen, the price of lumber did not decrease, showing that the importation had no effect upon the prices in the States. I will now refer to the Chicago lumber market, quoting from the Chicago Tribune of June 30, showing that since the abrogation of the reciprocit treaty the iinportations from Canada ave ad no effect upon the markets in the States: “The recei ts of lumber during the Week closing today have been unusually heavy, and the market for severaldayspast hashad a downwardtendency; but the decline is noticeable more particularly on commongrades, which have fallen in price 81 50 to $1 75per 1,000 feet. Prime cargocs, liowever, are stil in fair demand, and but little if any comcession has been made; but low gradecargoesare dith cult to sell, and pricestend downward." The same journal states under date of July 8, 3 days later, that “ the market for common and coarse car oes continues dull and depressed.” From these facts it will be seen that this question is substantially one of the States, and resolves itself simply into one of revenue. Now, Mr. Chairman, we can some times draw information and instruction from competitors and rivals; and with this viewI wish to call the attention of the committee to the report of the minister of finance for the Provinces. It has not been for otten that pending the discussion of the bilzi7regulating trade with British America that was before the House last March, a large and very influential dele gation of Canadians was present, representing the interests of the Canadas in the measure that was proposed to take the place of the reciprocity treaty which was then so soon to termi nate. That delegation so shrewdly managed their interests as to impress the ComWays&Means with the belief that it was much more important for the States than for the Canadas that the measure proposing to regulate trade between the 2 should become alaw. The distinished chairman had his fears so far invoke as to lead him to warn the House against 0 position, and zealously dep recated efeat oFso wise and equitable a project. What was that project? It was fixing the duty of one dollar on all lumber valued at 7 dollars and under; on all over 7 dollars and under 12 dollars a duty of 2 dollars; and all over 12 dollars a duty of 3 dollars. And we were told that the Provinces cared but little whether it was car ried or not; they were not to realize by its passage, but that the benefits would accrue mostly if not entirely to the States; and the apparent indifference of the delegation to which I have referred was ointed to as a moving reason why we should) grasp at so generous a proposition for the States. The British Prov inces were represented to have been the losers in the main by the reciprocity treaty, and their assent to the new basis referred to was deemed a cat concession on their part. 0w, sir, what does their financial minister admit in his recent budget? He says, “In consequence of the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty it became imperative to rearrange the customs. The estimated falling off in reve nue is $1,000,000.” Here then is an official admission by the minister of finance that the termination of this reciprocity treaty, so won derfully beneficial, as stated, to the States, is to work a loss of revenue to the Provinces of $1,000,000 the current fiscal year. ln other words, we have the grave and starth ng concession that the reciprocity treatyinstead of being detrimental has been beneficial to the Prov inces to the amount of $1,000,000 perannum. We have then outof our generosity, during the existence of that treaty, poured into the British exchequer at least $12,000,000. A most sin gularreciprocity, and a most significant key to the studied indifference of the Canadian dele gation. Is it new again proposed to reproduce this damaging commercial relationship to the States? Hear this financial minister further and learn wisdom from the mOllthfOf our competitors. After stating that the estimated falling off of their revenue during the coming year will be $1,000,000, he proposes, in order to supply the deficiency, to raise a duty upon importations, a dut of from 30 to 60 cents upon spirits; an( upon Indian corn and coarse grains, ten cents er bushel striking here at the great agricu tural interests of the West, especially Illinois, the State that is now clamorous through its delegation for easier terms of interchange with this voracious power. Here the hammerMr. MORRILL. fell? I stil adhere to what I said on a former occasion, thata moderate duty will not increase the price of lumber. But it isimportant that in reference to this matter we should not exceed a strictly revenue duty. It must be borne in mind that Canada is at the present time pressed for money. The government has been comelled to issue a legal tender currency, as I anderstand, to the extent of $6,000,000, and has also been obli ed to levy an export duty upon lumber in the 0g. The article now under discussion is one that we have favored in all our tax bills, exemptin it from duty to a great extent, on the ground that building material and fencing stuffsought to be as cheap as possible throughout the whole country. It is importantto the interests of the U.S. that we should not cut.down our forests too ra idly. I am not disposed to consent to the amendment of the Gentfrom Michigan. It would levy upon ordinary fencing stuff double the amount of duty fixed in the bill. I think that this cheaper sort of lumber ought to come in at a lower rate than that of a better quality, which is sold at much higher prices. I trust that the amendment will not be adopted.