Mr. ALLlSON. I move to strike out the entire section. Mr. Chairman, the only theory on which this tax on raw cotton can be justified, and the only theory on which it is justified, is that we have the monopoly of the reduction of cot ton. The testimony taken fore the revenue commissioners, as well as that taken before the committee, was to the effect that we would have the monopoly of the production of cotton in this country. The proposition of the committee is to take from the Treasury of the U.S. whatever amount of revenue we collect from the raw cotton manufactured in the U.S. for exortation and placing it in the hands of man acturers of cotton goods. For one I am in favoro protecting the manufacture of cotton wherever it needs protection, but the testimony is that the manufacturers do not need any protection. It is true they cannot manufacture what is needed in this country. It is therefore that. I am not ipregrad to take money out of the Treasury of the U.S., when it has been placed there to raise revenue, and to place it. in the hands of the manufacturers of cotton goods, to specially stimulate that interest. I do not think for the next 3 or 4 years we will have erected many new manufactories of cotton goods. The cost of machinery is too great. There are manufactories enough to manufacture what is needed for this country, and I am not willing to take money out of the Treasury to encourage that industry. I would be willing to encourage it, but not to take money from the Treasury that we put. there to pay the interest on our debts and to meet current expenses. The evidence is that the manufacturers ofcot ton goods need noprotection at home; that they can compete successfully with British manufacturers o cotton. I know gentlemen say there is a certain class of cotton articles in this country in which we cannot compete with British manufacture, low price cotton goods, but the are a small amount. But we have not exportc, for the last 4 or 5 years, any great amount of cotton goods. A leadin gentleman of a manufacturing county of l ussachusetts said, before the committee and before the revenue commissioners, that the tax today was paid by the manufacturer of cotton, and not by the consumer why? Because of the great advance in cotton. We allow a drawback on the exportation of manufactured goods, and we also allow 2 cents drawback on raw cotton. I think that is sufficient until we test the effect of this law. Therefore I am in favor of letting the draw back remain us it is. I believe this tax on raw cotton is an experiment. I think we can stand a small duty on cotton. I do not believe, when we produce from 5 to 6 and ten million bales, we can afford to levy a heavy tax when exorted from the country. Here the hammer fell.