Mr. HOWE. And it comes in under the same duty. It is used for these 2 purposes mainly. It is said to make about from 60 to 100 gallons of oil to the ton, and it will make about 10,000 feet of gas. Is that an opPressive tax upon the consumers of either the oil or the gas? It will be about 12 and a half cents on 1000feet of as. That gas I suppose sells for 3 or 4 ollars 1000feet in the different cities where it is made. This duty increases the cost of that gas about 12 and a half cents. You will not let a citizen of the U.S. use a pound of chiccory root, which I do not suppose you mean to protect at all, unless he pays for the privilege of consuming in his family that pound of chiccory root 5 cents, the same as on coffee. You charge him 5 cents for consuming a pound of coffee; and that as a pure revenue measure. Well, if you charge as high for the privilege of consuming a pound of chic cory root as 5 cents, I think you are bound to charge as high as 12 and a half cents for consuming 1000feet of gas. This is much the lowest rate of tax, and I do not feel that I am opPressing NewEngland or unjust to any Fo of NewEngland by the vote I give. I do not mean to be. Sir, I regret I indulged in any reflection upon the general character of this bill. I regret it for 2 reasons. I am not entirely sure that I was not unjust to the bill, and I am not entirely certain, in view of what I saw here last night, that I was not a little imprudent myself. I believe it is rather the fashion not to exPress any very decided opinions about this bill one way or the other; it is considered a little safer to find fault with it than to approve it; but there was a degree of fluttering exhibited here last night that I had not witnessed before, and could not account for on the occasion. I am going to vote for this bill, and I am going to vote for it with a steady nerve, I think, unless it is hurt between this time and the time of its final passage more than I anticipate it will be hurt. I know, Mr. President, that there is a difference of opinion in the country about these measures, and has been for a great many years. We have been debating them very fiercely for some 40 or 50 years, and we have been experimenting upon them. There is a class of people in the E.States who think it is for our interest to buy every thing we want to buy where we can buy it for the least money, and that no impediments ought to be put in the way of our doing so; and therefore they are opposed to all systems of duty laid fopurpose of effecting purchases in our own country. There is another class of gentlemen who think that whatever can be made here, whatever labor can produce here as readily as it can be produced elsewhere, ought to be produced here. These 2 classes of opinions seem to be about as far apart as they ever were in their real beliefs, but they come very much nearer together in their forms of exPression than they used to do years ago. Those who hold to the latter opinion used to be called protectionists: those who hold to the former opinion used to be called the apos tles or disciples of free trade. Just now I believe we do not find any very loud advocates of free trade, and certainly none of protection. We find some gentlemen who are in favor of tariffs for revenue with incidental protection, but not for protection; and some gentlemen, like the Senfrom Iowa, for instance, who are not for free trade, but for judicious tariffs or systems of duty