Mr. LeBlOND. I move to amend by striking out “nine” and inserting “two ” andI do this, Mr. Chairman, in go fait. I do it because I believe the great interests of the American people demand it. And I confess I cannot understand the argument of my colleague who offered the 1st amendment. He contends these foundery men have been suffering; that they have been losing money for the last ten years. Now, I think that class of manufacturers throughout the country like to be ruined in the manner the gentleman has stated. They have been declaring large divi (lends, and why it is, when this particular interest has been losing money for the last ten years, these men should continue in the business is, I confess, a mystery to me. But I do not believe that they have been losing money. The gentleman closed by saying he does not care for a high tariff on pig iron, because it does not inure to the benefit of these men. But he says that the i jury falls upon the wood chopper and the wor er in iron. Well, if that is true, and I think it is altogether probable in part, this tariff is not going to help them; for if you make it 4 times as large they w'll still grind the faces of those who toil in th coal bed, and put the additional bounty in the pockets of the manufacturer. I never knew the manufacturing interest become liberal to ward those they employ, but the more margin you give them the more money it puts into their pockets, while they keep the laboring class Just. where they always were. Now, I wish this House to take some decided action upon this question. You are trying to' inaugurate a protective system. Years ago the people of the U.S. settled this question, and they settled it in favor of a tarifffor revenue alone. But now when gentlemen rise for the purpose of advocating a proposition in regard to tariff duty it is with a view of protecting something in which they are particularly interested. Sir, the people have fought this battle and settled it. asI said before, in favor of arevenue tariff. The Congress of 1862, under the then disturbed condition of the country, adopted a plan of raising revenue for protection alone, and not for the purpose of raising revenue, and this bill provides a further increase; and the distinguished Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] even denounces this bill as a free trade bill. Great God! If he calls this a free trade bill I would like to know what he would call a protective bill. Sir, this question ofiron is one that interests every sin gle man in the whole country. They are all interested in having it chea, and as cheap as it can possibly be produce. I am satisfied that the duty that is laid in this bill on every thing in the shape of iron, and I might say, the same of almost every provision in this bill, is only for the purpose of prohibiting the importation of these articles, and inflicting that much penalty upon the consuming class. Here the hammer fell