Mr. MCDOUGALL. There is a special reason, which I have not yet heard assigned, why there should be no tax on this production. A tax upon the production of gold would be a tax upon labor and enterprise, not upon capital or wealth. It is now some 16 or 17 years since mines of great wealth were 1st discovered in this country. Mining even in California today is still in its infancy, requiring the present expenditure of large capital with reference to prospective results. Miningthere, being better organized, is at present more successful than elsewhere; but it is the result of a series of experiments which have been going on from the 1st discovery of the mines, and those experiments have demanded the expenditure of a vast amount of capital. I am confident that more capital and labor at the common price have been employed there than has resulted from the productions of the mines; and yet every year places the mining interest upon more stable Foundations. In Colorado the amount expended is triple what has resulted by way of production; and it is only within the last year or two, when experienced California miners came in there, that they have been to a considerable degree successful those who under stood the science of procuring the metal from the mine. This production is not in a politico economical sense a legitimate subject of taxation. It is a production to be promoted. There is no country possessed of large mining interests in Europe that has not its colleges where young men are educated to the science and art of mining. It has been everywhere promoted for the advantage and profitof the Government. The wealth that results, the moment it does result in the form of wealth to the individual, becomes the subject of taxation, like every other form of wealth; but as a rule those who 1st embark in 100s and perhaps 1000s of han some fortunes have been lost in trying to develop the wealth of the sierras. We need their development and we need to romote them. They are yet in their infancy.ations are not made in a day, nor great systems or policies. In Swe den you find mining understood as a science, studied as a science, by the most cultivated men. So it is in Russia and in Austria and in nearly all the States of Europe. It is promoted at the expense of the Government. Why? Because if made successful wealth is produced which when achieved is the legitimate subject of taxation, and itgives strength and power to the Government. The wealth our mines have achieved has‘not gone to the miner and adventurer in California or in Colorado or in Idaho or in Montana. I remember very well when I 1st returned to this side from my coast in 1853, having been absent 3 or fouryears, I found the city of NewYork a diTTcrent city. The productions of California had stimulated her commerce and enterprise so that palaces had sprung up. There were no pal aces, though, in SanFrancisco or on the Pacific coast. In the city of Chicago it was the same, as I had occasion to observe, and so throughout the country. The wealth went to those who supplied the mines and mining enterprises, those who built the machinery, those who furnished the instruments, those who manufactured the powder for blasting, those who furnished the provisions that so ported the miners. Soitis at this day; and to pay the Atlantic States derive much the greater part of what is the true wealth derived from the mines of the West. The policy of the Government should be to promote and not to oppress the mining interests. I am against tie 3% or the live%. I do not mean that I am going to oppose the bill merely because it may contain a provision for a 3%. tax; but the policy is wrong. At this early period of that enterprise, in its infant condition, it is not policy to tax it; and then in its most pros perous condition it is not the legitimate subject of taxation. What results and becomes wealth is taxable, like the wealth that is won by the ‘merchant by his enterprises; and that is the wealth upon which the nation must depend. As for expecting to derive revenue of importance to the Government by such legisiation, I can assure you, Mr. President, and the Senate, that it will cripple enterprise and instead of being to the advantage of the country at large, which is always an advantage to the Government, it will be to the disadvantage of both. Therefore I object to the amendment offered by the Senfrom Ohio. I trust it will not be adopted. It will be looked upon as a very oppressive act on the part of the Government by the people upon the western coast engaged in this enterprise, as also in all the mining districts of the country. I should think it an unjust act myself, and I am sure an impolit ic one.