Mr. GRIMES. I agree with the Senfrom Ohio that it is a very great mistake to reduce it from 15 to ten cents, and I think it is a greater mistake still not to raise it from ten cents up to 20. As I understand it this bill is intended to promote the interests of all sections of the country, the laborer and the agriculturist as well as the manufacturer and the commercial man. It will be observed by reference to the bill that the agriculturist who raises barley if he imports his machinery from abroad, his rakes, his hoes, his reapers, and his plows, must pay 35%. advalorem on the value of the articles, and if he makes them himself he must pay the enormous duties that we impose upon iron and steel. But if the Canadian farmer or the rmer in any of the British Provinces who raisesthe same description of barley, which he sends into the American market to compete withour barley, chooses to come over into massachusetts or Vermont to procure his agricult ural implements, there is a drawback under the bill of the whole amount of duty that has been paid for the iron and steel that enter into the manufacture of those implements. There is therefore just that extent of advantage given to the farmer in the British Provinces who produces barley against the American farmer on this side of the line. This is an article that is produced to a very considerable extent in the northern States of the Northwest, in the State in which I live, in Illinois, Indiana, Mi Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and I cannot conceive of any possible argument that can be urged against this amendment, unless it be one which might be considered perhaps a very sound one in the mouths of temperance men, that according to the theory of this bill it will so enormously increase the production of barley that it will render malt and beer so cheap that it may have a demoralizing tendency upon the character of our population. That can be the only possible argument I think which the Senfrom Maine can urge against raising this duty from ten cents to 20.