Mr. WILLIAMS. I object to putting grind stones and building stones together, because they are produced in different places and the are used for different purposes, and there is no sort of similarity between the 2 except that they are stones. Grindstones are used by the farmers and mechanics and manufacturers, and are absolutely necessary for the business of the country, while most of the building stone referred to in this amendment are used by those persons who build palatial residences on the 5th avenue in NewYork or in the cities of the country, and they are generally purchased and used by men of wealth, and are to a great extent luxuries. I think, therefore, that great injustice may be done to one class or the other by putting grind stones and these building stones together on the same basis. The argument made by the Senfrom Ohio is a very sound and logical argument, but I think it is not sufficiently comprehensive. The question arises: if you protect, propose, the laborers who are o in the production of grindstones, will you not oppress the laborers who are employed in the manufacturing establishments of the country where it is necessary to use these grindstones? It is rePresented to us, with how much truth I do not know, because these rePresentations do conflict, that to. 5 dollars per ton upon grindstones would amount to a prohibit. ory tariff and compel the manufacturers of the East, where a large proportion of the grind stones of the country are used, to pay for the transportation of grindstones from the western States to the eastern States, and in that way the tariff would be very opPressive; and the effect of it would be, if not altogether to close up some of those manufacturing establishments, to compel the men who are engaged in this business, if possible, to reduce the price of the labor which they employ, so as to enable them to pay for the additional amount you put upon the grindstones they use. The owners of one establishment rePresent that to impose this duty would add $9,000 per year to their expenses. They import grind stones that are very heavy, weighing several tons, which are needed in their business. you impose 5 dollars a ton on a grindstone weighing several tons it is easy to see that it amounts to a considerable sum altogether. It would be a very large tax upon their business. Besides, these stones are used by the farmers of the country; they are necessary to the manufacturing interest; and so far as my connection with this bill is concerned I claim that in regard to any material which is taken out of the ground in this country and is essentially a raw material, while you undertake to protect the manufac turing interest in which the great mass of the labor is employed, it is bad policy to impose a high tariff upon that raw material. It is possible that without such a tariff some persons may suffer by the competition, but it is better that a few should suffer than that many should suffer. You cannot impose a high tariff, in my judgment, upon raw materials that enter into the manufacturing business of the count without opPressing those interests that furnis the chief employment for labor. The best policy is to build up manufacturing establishments. These high taxes that you put upon every material in the nature of raw material, it seems to me, will tend to cripple, weaken, and destroy them.