Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, I desxre in the 1st place to correct one or 2 misapprehensions of fact in regard to the action proposed by this bill. It prooses a tax of one cent perpound upon railroad iron, which is an increase of 5 dollars perton, and no more, upon the existing rate. I undertake to say that during the last 18 months no manufacturer of railroad iron in the U.S. has been doing business at a profit. I believe that no manufacturer of iron of anpgrnde has been doing business at a profit. tor the last 2 years the internal direct taxes upon the manufacturer, accompanied by those indirect taxes resulting from the internal taxation of the consumption of the laborer, have been actually greater than the tariff, with the gold rates converted into currency. The protection has been in favor of the foreign producer, and not the home producer. The discrimination has been in favor of foreign labor and against home labor. Now, by the internalrevenue act of the present session, as proposed to be passed, we have struck off those direct taxes upon railroad iron, but the great mass of indirect taxation, which bears very heavily upon all these classes of manufacture in which labor is the principalingredient, will still continue. wc now propose to put a tariff of 20 dollars perton on railroad 'iron. That is not all protection, for from it we must subtract the amount of indirect internalrevenue tax which still bears upon it. What this iIs am unable to state in detail, but we may safely estimate it as not less than 1/2 this amount. Agentle man near me says that it will amount to 8 dollars perton. My own impression is that it will not be less than ten dollars perton. Thus we see that the protection here proposed is no such monstrous thin as gentlemen have argued. Let me then cave this branch of the subject and recur for a moment to the arguments which have been advanced against this proposed rate of duty. All the gentlemen who have discussed this question, including my colleague from the city of NewYork, Mr. RAYMOND] who spoke on behalf of NewYork railroads, and the gentlemen from the West, who speak in behalfof, the agricultural interest, as connected with the railroad interest, and requiring cheap transportation, have argued that this proposed amount of duty upon foreign iron is to be added to‘the price of railroad iron. Why, Mr. Speaker, I ad supposed that that fallacy had been exosed so often, and had been so thoroughly exp oded by the practical experience of this nation, that no one would deem it necessary to repeat it here. But I call gentlemen's attention to the fact that the cheapness ofiron which did exist in this country at the time when the war broke out, and which would exist today but for the inflation caused by the war, is the result of a protection to home industry, or a building up of American interests, discriminating in favor of our own labor, so as to give the market to home producers. Strike down the home manufacturer, and youlcave us at the mercy of foreign importers. Strike out this proposed duty on iron, and not an iron mill int lenation can live. Sweep away this protoctiou and you leave us at the mercy of the foreign importers. No man who has read or seen anything of the commerce and manufactures of this nation is ignorant of the fact that the foreign manufacturers are always’found combined and acting together. Here the hammer fell.]