Mr. GRIMES. Mr. President, it seems that in the view of the Senfrom Ohio I have been guilty of some very inconsiderate conduct, or am likely to be guilty of some when I vote for the motion to recommit this measure to the ComFinance. I must confess that he is gifted with a much keener mental .than most people if he can see any thing. such What was the condition of this bill at the last session? Did it come before us in conjunction with an internalrevenue bill? I am not aware of it, and I do not think he is: I do not think that is a fact known to members of this body. It is true, at the last session I did move to postpone this bill and it went over, or rather that which then formed the basis of this bill. The title is left, and I guess that is about pretty much all there is left, except perhaps the duty on iron and wool alone. We then went to work upon the internalrevenue law. We perfected that. We reduced, in the interest of some of these iron men, the internal duty on pig iron and railroad iron. We relieved one establishment with a capital of $1,000,000, although they have a nominal capital of $2,000,000, from $225,000 of internalrevenue a year, a very respectable profit, I apprehend, in the judgment of most people upon the amount of capital they had in their concern; but they are not content with that, and they come here this year and ask for this additional protection. Now, sir, I say, as I said before, that the way to begin to legislate on these financial questions is to begin with the internalrevenue law 1st. We are told that the House is considering such a measure as that. We know that they are. We know that it is necessary that there should be a new law on that subject passed. Some of us believe that that is the place and the only place where relief to the country will be found; and therefore we propose to begin with that law. I have simpl asked that this bill I do not care whether it be recommitted or not; postpone it if you choose shall not be disposed of finally until the House shall have an opportunity to perfect their bill and send it to us. The Senator says that the State of Ohio is not interested in this measure. Has not the State of Ohio some salt works? Has it not got bitumine us coal taxed at $1 50 a ton? Have you not by this bill imposed 160%. on salt? Now, for example, suppose the House shall consent to take off the internalrevenue duty on salt. I undertake to say they will do it. I think I am justified in saying that the ComWays&Means have already agreed to it. We have put a duty on foreign salt to the amount of 160%., and that is followed the next week by a law which takes off the entire internal duty upon the production of salt. The amount that then comes into the Federal Treasury from the customs only upon salt is just so much additional burden imposed upon the consumer. That is all there is of it; and I think that is a very good illustration to show the necessity of our beginning at that end of the line rather than undertaking to raise the impost duties in the 1st instance. Mr. President, I am not as familiar with the history of this character of legislation as the Senators from Ohio or Maine; but, according to my recollection, in every instance during the last 6 years we have passed our internalrevenue law before we passed upon the tariff law. Why should there be a deviation from that rule now?