Mr. DEMING. I move, proformat, to strike out the word “ten” and insert “ 5. ” So much has been said in this debate, since the subject of the battle of cigars has been introduced, about Connecticut tobacco, Connecticut seed leaf, and Connecticut ci are, that n stranger present in this Hall would suppose that it was the purpose of legislation on internalrevenue here to strike down an interest which is assumed to be a flourishing one. Now, it seems to me that if, in spite of all the changeable legislation upon the subject of tobacco and cigars, the Connecticut tobacco interest has contrived to live, but live at a “poor, dyin rate, ” this is no reason why it should be either envied or assailed. It. has been stated here, and I presume stated correctly, that in Ohio and in the Northwest the tobacco and ci or interests are entirely broken down and did a idated. We have even been told by one gentleman that in his city of 30,000 inhabitants, where, previous to this taxation, they manufactured 9 million cigars annually, they do not manufacture even one at the present time. Well, now, I am ready to assume all this as true. But I know very well this is the universal cry and the universal appeal of all interests that are attempting to ese ape taxation; and I must accept all these statements of constituents with many grains of allowance. It has also been assumed here that the tobacco interest of the Connecticut valley is in a vastly flourishing condition, so as to excite the envy of the Northwest. I wish to state that this assumption is entirely unfounded that the tobacco and cigar interests of the Connecticut valley were never more depressed than they are at the present time, and that we have no reason whatever to exalt over our western brethren. The truth is that the tobacco interest in this country universally is depressed the result, in my jn gment, of 4 causes: 1st, excessive taxation; 2nd, a low tariff; 3rd, the poor condition oflast years crops; and 4th, the excessive influx of southern tobacco in consequence of the cessation of hostilities. The remedy is, not to tinker your revenue law every session for the purpose of elevating the interest of one section of the country to the depression of another, but in the 1st place to raise the tariff, and in the next place to wait for better cro s and until the laws of trade shall regulate a intted market. et me say, in regard to the amendment proposed by my distinguished friendfrom Pennsylvania, which has been accepted by my friendfrom Ohio, that its effect will be to destroy entirely the manufacture of the higher grades of cigars. But notwithstanding this taxation, we can enter into competition with you of the West in the manufacture of the lower grades of cigars. I doubt very seriously whether by this taxation you are promoting your own interests; for the Connecticut seed leaf, which is the subject of so much envy here, goes in large quantities to Cincinnati, to Chicago, to Detroit, and is there employed by cigar manufacturers for the purpose of manufacturing the higher grades of cigars. It goes also to Phil adelphia and to Pittsburg; and while my distinguished friends are attempting to protect the cigar interests of some country districts, they are breaking up the manufacture of the higher grades of cigars in the cities. for us thatno system of legislation can render western tobacco as marketable as eastern to bacco, unless you adopt some system of legis It is fortunatelation for preventing the soilof the Connecticut valley from growing better tobacco than the western soil. Now, it seemstome, that instead of varying your legislation, as you do, session after session, for the purpose of accommodating some local interests, you should wait until the laws of trade can regulate all the discrep ancies of which you complain. I know very well that the adoptionof the amendment proposed by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania will utterly destroy the manufacture of the higher grades of cigars and turn the whole cigar interest of the country into the manufacture of cheap cigars. I withdraw my amendment.