Mr. WILSON, of Iowa. I have often heard the same argument made by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania. It is not new. He charges me with expressing antiquated ideas. It may be that he has been uttering sentiments of the same character himself. Now, I could understand, while the war was in progress, and we were incurring debts every day, why there should be protection in customs duties; but now that the war is over; now that we are reducing the vol ume of our national recei ts; now, when we have just passed an interna revenue act, which we were told by the ComWays&Means would reduce the revenue $75,000,000, I cannot understand why we should be asked to go on and increase the duties on im orts to the enormous extent provided in this bill. I am quite as anxious as the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. S'rsvsxs] can he to have manufactories established all over the beautiful country in which I reside;I desire to see the Mississippi and its tributaries lined from its source to its mouth with manufacturing establilshments, which will make that portion of the country great, prosperous, and wealthy. But, sir, I do not desire to do that at the expense of what I believe to be sound policy on the part of our country. I have asked the chairman of the ComWays&Means to tell me how much the duty provided for in this section increases the duties levied under the existing taritf. I have not received an answer from him; but I have received an answer from another source; not from an outsider, not from a manufacturer, but from a member of this House, who is well informed in relation to this subject, and he tells methat the increase under this paragraph will amount to one or 200%. And yet we are told that it is necessar for us to have that increase of duty, ip or or that we may not send our raw material to Russia to be'inanufactured there and brought back to us, and that we shall have a home mar ket. Does the Gentfrom Pennsylvania expect the consumers of the country, who are to pay these exorbitantly increased rates under the duty now proposed to be laid for the purpose of sustaining the theory which he has advanced here today of building up at some future time maiiufactories of these particular articles? Not at all. While we take care of the interests of the manufacturer, we must take care, also, of the people who are to buy the goods they manufacture, and who are to pay these exorbitant rates of import duty. If we do that the consumer will not quarrel with the manufacturer, and the manufacturer will have no cause to quarrel with the consumer. I protest against the imposition of import duties ranging from one to 200%.; and I stand here today a better friend of the manufacturing interest than some who claim to be its special cham ions. I ask the House to give stability to the law in reference, to this matter, and not to be constantly changing it. A