Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know whether they could or not. It looks as if they thought that by imposing this duty, as the Senfrom Iowa says, they could, under pretense of the duty, charge a higher price to everybody that buys of them. They would charge more as a matter of course. They are not interfered with, and cannot be interfered with in any way by the importation of these stones from Nova Scotia; and the only effect is precisely that which I have stated. To charge one dollar duty on what costs ten would seem to be sufficient on such a coarse, rough article as this, used to the extent it is, especially when we secure the finishing out of the article in this country by a duty of 5 dollars per ton on the finished article. Another letter has been handed to me, which I will read. It is directed to Mr. DoDGE, of the House:. “We are importers of and dealers in foreigngrind stones in this city. We import them from England. France, and Nova Scotia to a limited extent, but the stones are used by all manufacturers of edged tools, machinists, founders, &c. The foreign stones are unlike in quality to any found in this country, and for certain purposes we have no stones in the U.S. that will answertheir purpose. Under the Present tariff we pay a duty of ten%. atwdecnatylopreemr. The Wells tariff increases the duty to cent.” o We have put it back to ten%. “This the article will bear without detriment to our business; but a specificduty of 5 dollars per ton, as per bill passed by the Senate committee, would be disastrous to a large class of importers, dealers, and imanufacturers, as it would almount to a prohibition of foreign grindstones.” Now, sir, I have stated the reasons as o: cable to the article of grindstones. With regard to these other stones, which the Senator has connected in the same category, the committee had the subject under consideration, examined it very carefully, and on the building stone which comes in from Nova Scotia, and of which I know something, imposed a duty of 2 dollars per ton, double the duty that is imposed on these other stones. It is used principally in making fronts for stores, houses, &c., and I do not know that it interferes with anybody to any extent. The Nova Scotia stone I have seen the article; it is used in my city somewhat is a yellowish stone, quite soft, and easily worked, differing entirely in all its quali ties, color, and everything else from the stone that is quarried in Connecticut, and I suppose from the stone that is quarried in NewJersey. My colleague on the committee from NewYork [Mr. MoRGAN] states that in his belief 19 20ths of the stone used in the city of NewYork comes from the quarries in NewJersey and Connecticut, and probabl more. I do not know anything about that. know, with regard to this Nova Scotia stone, that in rebuilding the city of Portland we have used it somewhat, but not exclusively. We have used other stone. One important building was erected with it. The committee did not think that on a rough article like that, unfinished, imported as it is, of course the freight being considerable, used for buildings, for stores, houses, &c., although used principally by those who want to build handsome erections, it would be advisable to put a very heavy duty, inasmuch as it did not and could not interfere injuriously with the stones that are quarried in our own country. I am told with regard to the quarry in Connecti cut, by a colleague on the committee who lives in the vicinity, that it has been from the beginning highly prosperous, making money, and flourishing, and is so at this day in every way. Now, why they should want so heavy a duty on building material of another description of stone is rather a mystery to me; and I think pushing, these duties to so high a point upon rough articles of this description, which are of great necessity to the people, is hardly advisable. I have stated the views of the committee on this subject. I leave the question to the senate.