Mr. HEN DRICKS.’ Before the vote is taken on this proposition, I desire to say a word or two. This bill purports to be a bill to reduce taxes. We were informed b the proper Dept of the Government that the condition of our finances would allow a very large reduction; and I think I understood from the Senfrom Ohio [Mr. Susanne] that the reduction cOntemplated in this bill would be about 75 million dollars and that the condition of the Treasury would allow that much of a reduction. I had hoped to see some reduction in those taxes that press particularly upon the agricultural interests of the country; but I have been disappointed in that, and I think the western country will also be disappointed. We have a tax levied, for some reasnn, in most extraordinary amount, upon one important production of the western country. I spuiak of the production of whisky. That is contin ued at 2 dollars a gallon. I think that the experience of two‘ years has shown that that tax defeats revenue, and at the same time defeat production. I am not going to speak of this interest in its connection with the morals of the country, for no Senator in any of.the discussions upon it has assumed that Congress has any right. to legislate in the tax bill with a view to any moral results. The tax of 2 dollars a gallon is imposed with a view to revenue; and twopyears’ experience has shown that that tax instead of producing revenue de feats revenue, and at the same time defeats a production very important to uhe western country. While we are reducing the tax upon other articles it is proposed to increase it upon a very important production of agriculture, that production to which the Senfrom Dela ware has just referred, the production of cot ton. I am not able to see upon what principle Congress now proposes to increase the tax upon potton as it comes from the earth 50%. While you are, reducing the tax upon other articles you increase it upon cotton 50%. From 2 cents on the pound this report takes it up to 3 cents. The Senate refused to increase it, upon a decided vote. as I recollect. I am not going to refer to the argument so ably presented by the Senfrom Missouri, [Mr. HENDEiisox] and which I thought was not answered, in regard to the constitutional power to tax this article; but I speak of it as a measure of wisdom, considering the present.condition of the country. Every Senator is aware of the fact that the balance of trade is largely against us, and that to meet this balance every year there are large exports of the precious metals. Cotton, for u long series of years, has been the production of this conntry that enabled us to maintain the balance of trade in our favor. Cotton was indispensable to the industrial pursuits in Europe. We 1 had not to beg a market for cotton. It demanded its market and that demand had to be responded to by all the industrial interests of Europe. New, sir, when it is very impor t tnnt that we should encourage the production of agriculture, not only with a view to the interests of the southern States, but with a view to the substantial interests of all the country, that we may have an article for export which 5 will command a foreign market, which will I restore the balance oftrade in our favor, which, will enable us to keep the precious metals at 5 home; now, at a period in our history when i t is most important that we shall encoura c this.prodactiou, we impose a most extraor iuary tax upon it, a tax, as the Senfrom Delt aware has said, which will be equal to 1/3rd of its whole value if the production were equal to what it was a few years ago.