Mr. POIlIEItOY. I only desire to say a single word in reply to the Senfrom Indiana, who thought it strange that any Senator representing a western State should think of concurring in this report of the committee, of conference, especially that portion of it relating to the tax upon cotton. Representing in part a western State, I do not forget that I am also a Senator of the U.S., and that in arranging taxes for the whole country we cannot.ook simply to the interests of our own State or section. An appeal to a section upon; a question of such public interest as this looks to me like an effort to divide the country rather than to unite it. I have been, I confess, taking the tax bill as a whole, admirably well pleased with it, because it is a great improvement upon the bill of last year. I did not vote for the tax upon cotton, not because the people of my State and any particular interest in that production we always raised some, but a very littlebut because since the rebellion has closed there is now an effort to raise cotton by free labor, and it is an experiment. The cotton interests in this country are going to a great extent into ands that have never raised cotton before. The committee have been careful to encourage the production of iron by striking off all the taxes. Under the old bill the iron manufacturers for manuihcturing the simplest form, like railroad iron, paid 8 dol ars a ton, while under this tax bill they pay not a cent. I am glad of that. It is done because we want to encourage the rodnction of iron. I use that only as an il ustration of a number of other articles. Now, I want to encourage the production of cotton. It is as valuable to us as gold. We are undertaking to raise it under a new system of labor, and at this crisis I think it exceedingly unfortunate to putn tax upon it. That, however, is only one item in this bill, and because I regard that as unfortunate, I shall not go against the whole bill; for, as a whole, it is certainly a very great improvement upon any tax bill we have had before.‘ The Senator speaks about the agriculture of the West being taxed. In reply to that I will say, in the 1st place, that there is no reason why one interest of the country should not be taxed as well as another. This bill is pecu liarly lhvorable to agriculturists, and for no reason that I know of. I do not know why agriculture is any more honorable or is any more entitled to exemption than any other interest; and yet we exempt it; and I am very glad of that, because the section l represent is an agricultural community, and that is the great interest of the country. But on principle I know no reason why that interest should be particularly protected‘in tax bills. The manufacturing interests of the country are as deserving of protection as the agricultural, and so are the commercial interests, and so are all the interests of the people. They are all do serving and no one 0t them should be discriminatedagainst; butin this bill llindliardly anything raised by agriculturists taxed except, perhaps. cotton and whisky and tobacco. So far as whisky and tobacco are concerned, the tax comes ultimately, almost all of it, out of the consumer; and l have long believed that if persons desired to consume those luxuries, as they are called, they could very well allbrd 10 pay for them, and I do not hear much grum ling against their paying for them. Persons who dance at such a shrine as that should always pay the fiddler, and pay him well. I do, not thin ( that that is any too high; I think it should be at least as high as it is. My own i opinion is that this bill is such an improvement upon any other tax bill that has ever passed Congress that it will be received in the country with joy, and the report of the committee of conference should be adopted, notwithstanding there may be in it. one or 2 items which as individuals and as representin particular sections of the country we might desire to have changed. As a whole [shall go for it, and I think we ought to adopt the report of the committee.