Mr. FESSENDEN. But when that kind of lumber was got in it could be used for a great many purposes besides fencing. The result might be to cover the West with imported pine lumber nominally to be used for fencing, but which would answer almost every conceivable use for finishing purposes in connection with buildings. It is very obvious that there should be a discrimination between the other kinds of lumber that arementioned and pine. Pine is the most valuable for building purposes, the most valuable for all sorts of finishing. I cannot conceive why you should give to the farmers of the West a particular benefit with regard to fencing which you do not give them with regard to their houses. The 1st thing a man who emigrates to the West wants is a building to cover himself and his family and to live in. It is not proposed to relieve him from taxation upon the articles that enter into his house; but when he gets his house built, with every thing comfortable about him, and when he comes to fencing in his land when he grows richer, you want to put the wood that he uses for fencing in the lower grade of duty. The only way in which you can regulate the matter in order to prevent frauds is to describe the particular kind of lumber, so that there can be no mistake about it. The moment you begin to say that lumber of a particular description may be imported for some purposes and not for others, especially pine of the kind the Senator describes, which could be used for finishing purposes to a very great extent, you have no protection whatever. The only way the Senator's object could be accomplished would be to give a drawback on the ground that fencing was so important that it should be particularly benefited and patronized, and provide that where a man had erected fences with imported pine lumber and could prove to the satisfaction of the collector that he had used it for fencing he might have a drawback. If you carry. system of draw backs to the prairies, I doubt very much whether, in the state of the collection districts in that region, it would be very easy to avoid the con which I have pointed out. Theonly distinction, and a distinction which is run always in these bills in laying the duties upon lumber, is to distinguish the different kinds of lumber. Some are cheap, common, and do not pay and cannot pay so heavy a duty as others. Other lumber, like pine, is well known and its uses are well known. I trust the amendment will not be adopted, because it would create infinite confusion in the collection of the duties; it would lead to innu merable frauds; it would be impossible to draw the distinction attempted to be made, and there is no reason why pine for one purpose should come in at a lower rate of duty than pine for any other purpose; why those who use it to build houses should pay more than those who use it to make fences.