Mr. CONKLING. Mr. Chairman, Iaree with the Gentfrom Vermont that we 18d better address ourselves to making substantial progress in the important question before us, and I am not sure that we can progress more wisely than topnuse atthis pointand seewhether we had better attempt further to press the bill. The subject before us is a somewhat grave one. GreatBritain has more square miles upon this continent than we have. The people who inhabit these possessions have a trade amounting to $68,000,000. As the treaty which has for years regulated this trade was about to expire, the ComWays&Means felt that the country demanded at its hands to propose some substitute for the dying treaty which should give the country some commercial advantages. The committee therefore proposed a scale of imposts, of which great complaints are made in the Canadian and provincial ress a scale more or less unsatisfactory to 11 those on the other side of the frontier to be affectedby it. The attempt of the committee in reporting the pending bi lwas to regulate this subject by consulting legislation, by legislation which should be adjustable from time to time on our art to the spirit of liberalityor of hostilitywhic should be exhibited on the other side. Having proposed this measure, what do you find? ardly an encouraging response from the House certainly. We find gentlemen who are the enemies of any such measure whatever combining with the friends of particular loca propositions, of propositions to give excessive protection, for the purpose of so loading the bill that it oughtnot to pass, and would lead to no reciprocal action if it should. In deed it is already loaded with amendments which violate the fundamental principles of American policy. Looking at it as a revenue measure it violates these principles. Why? Because there is no need ofimposts so enor mous in the case of any nation in this hemi sphere or the other. The revenue is abundant without going to such extremes. The estimates for the next fiscal year are $284,000,000. The revenue is vastly in excess of that sum, and we are able to dispense with a very consider able part of taxes, excises, and, similar bur dens. As a question of protection the bill, as already amended, violates the settled American policy. Why? Because we are imposing imposts prohibitory, or nearly so, upon raw material. For example, in the general tariff as it now stands, common to the world, building stone uncut is 20%. Here we propose to tax it 35%. Barley stands at 15% and we here propose to tax it 25%. Cattle are tree, here we put a high tarilf on them. Why is all this? Everybody knows that those who advo cate such amendments, and the majority which carries them into the bill really design to de stroy it by putting into it legislation special to Canada upon which we would not stand for one moment as applicable to the world. We all know that no one seriously means to refuse raw material from Canada at the same rate at which we allow it to come in from the rest of the world. Looking to this action and at other indications my belief is that a determination prevails against the measure as a whole. Iwill not say that gentlemen are wrong in their hostility; that is not the question at.this point; my impression is that it would be well, before expendinr more time, to test the strength of the general proposition. I make no motion, but m judgment is that the ComWays and cans ought not to struggle against the determination of the House. As one member of the committee I do not feel bound to do so.