Mr. PAINE. I understand him now as in favor of imposing a tax on manufactured cot ton made in the U.S. so that he may be able to impose a tax upon raw cotton exported to foreign countries. Now, it seems to me that all constitutional objections to the amendment proposed by the Gentfrom Maine [Mr. JYNCH] could be obviated if the Gentfrom Vermont would state, as I understood him to state, that he is in favor of imposing a tax on cotton manufactured in the U.S and consumed in the U.S., in order to be able to impose such a tax on cotton manufactured in the U.S and consumed abroad. If that should be done, then if a drawback is allowed on cotton exported to foreign countries manufactured in the U.S., it might with equal propricty be allowed on cotton manufacturedpin the U.S and consumed at home. Because, if no discrimination is made in cotton manufactured and consumed here and against cotton manufactured here and consumed at road, there can be no evasion of the constitutional provision and it seems to me if we can, without invading the constitutional provision, do something for the poor men of the country who consume cotton manufactured here we ought to do it. Now. it is true, as the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. HARDING] has said, that most of the consumers of cotton in this country are poor men. They do not wear silks and broadeloths as do the rich; and if a tax is imposed upon cotton manufactured in this country and consumed here, it must ultimately be paid by those who are least able to bear it. I am in favor of fostering the manufacture of cotton. I shall vote for protection here whenever the opportunity shall offer. But I cannot. see why we should take this mode of fostering domestic manufacture, whether in cotton or anything else, by a discrimination in favor of the purchaser in a foreign market and against the purchaser in our own market; in favor of the foreign consumer and against the home consumer. I am in favor of the proposition of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Sri:vnxs] and I desire, as he does, to foster domestic manufactures; but I do not wish to do it at the expense of home consumers and for the bone fit of foreign consumers. I would do it in such a way that the poor people of this country who consume cotton goods mainly may not have this heav burden to hear.