Mr. PIKE. I renew it. When I was interrupted before I was about to make a proposition which I think the Committee of I ays and Means will accept, and that is to strike out this section and the next 3 succeeding sections, and allow this whole matter to go over until next yrear. The tax for this year is already assessed. he instructions have already gone out. The change of law will not affect it in any articular, either in the assessment or collection. This Congress adjourus, finally, on the 4th of March next. There will be abundant time to regulate this matter between the 4th of March, when Congress adjourns, and the lst of May, when the tax is assessed. In the mean time we shall have the benefit of the experience during the vacation. The revenue commission has come to the conclusion, and it is the same conclusion to which we have all come, that the amounts to he realized from the assessments made in this bill are exceedingly uncertain. They depend upon business to be done here after, and whether or not the expectations of the ComWays&Means will be realized, or the revenue fall very far short of the calculations made by the ComWaysand Means, nobody knows. Perhaps one intelligent gentleman here can guess as well as another, but the experieuce whichwe shall have between now and the next 4th of March will determine this problem. Itwould be wise, then, to postpone the whole matter until next session. If the House does not assent to this proposition, I be e that they will assent to my amendment, which will continue the present law I have one word to say in reply to the Gentfrom Vermont, Mr. Momma] Ieited the example of Englan in this matter of in come tax. did it because British leIislation has always been of a conservative character with regard to property, and no man can be accused; of demagoguism or of pandering unduly to the popular taste who follows the conservative example of British legislation. The chairman of the ComWays&Means replies to me that they haverank there, that they have lords and commons, a ueeu and dukes, barons and knights. Now, if the income tax under British legislation was assessed in proportion to rank, the argument would be agood one, but, as hewcll knows, some of these lords and barons are as poor as church mice; they are entirely barren of income, as the Gentfrom Iowa [Mr. Watson] suggests, [laughter;] and consequently the reply made by tie distinguished chairman of the ComWays&Means is entirely mal d propos. Now, I have to say one word further. When the Gentleman says that the ComWays&Means in reporting this bill make no distinctions in rank, I reply that they have made 2 ranks one is the great mass of the people who have less than $1,000 income, and ) the other rank is that smaller class of people who have an income of more than $1,000. I repose simply to add to the number of ran 24, and make another over 85.000. Will the chairman of the ComWays&Means tell me the difference in principle? Here the hammer fell.]