Mr. ANTHONY. I am satisfied that unless there be some additional duty put upon machinery that branch of industry will be driven out of the country. The argument of the Senfrom Ohio is not precisely fair. He says that because a large où. duty has been put upon the raw material, therefore we wish a corresponding additional duty put upon the manufactured article, whereas the raw material is but a small portion of the value of the manufactured article. If the advance was demanded on that ground, the answer of the Senfrom Ohio would be perfect; but it is not so. The demand is made upon the ground stated by the chairman of the ComFinance in presenting the bill: that it has been the object of the committee to give protection wherever it was needed. Mr. President, I am very sorry indeed to give any vote that makes machinery cost more, be cause; although many of my constituents manufacture machinery, many more of them use it. But leaving entirely out of the question the protection due to our own industry, taking into consideration only the question of national independence, I believe it is of vital importance that we should not drive out of the country the fabrication of iron, and I am quite sure that the present duty reported in this bill is not sufficient to retain that branch of industry. I do not know but that by and by, after labor comes down, it may revive again; but at present, with anything like the present prices of labor, it will be impossible I think to carry it on. I do not know upon what principle it is that we put a duty of 100%. upon the manufacture of iron and then put a i. of only 45%. upon the industry which transforms that iron into a useful machine. I do not know why the one branch of industry is not entitled to just as much protection as the other, provided it needs that protection. I suppose the manufacturer of iron requires a greater degree of protection in order to its successful prosecution than the manufacture of machinery itself; but if you give the manufacturer of iron all that is required to carry on the business successfully, then I do not see why you are not bound to F. give the same to the manufacturer of machinery. know very well that if we increase the price of machinery we increase the price of the articles which machinery produces, and that increases the cost of living and raises the price of labor, without giving to the laborer really any additional wages; but I do not see how we are to prevent it. If we are to Inake a beginning we must begin at the bottom and reduce the cost of the raw material; and that, I understand, the committee are not prepared to do, and I do not ask it of them. The reason why we could import machinery under the duty that now exists was that we had gold at 200; that made all the difference in the world; but now machinery is coming in here from England and is laid down here at 30%, less than we can manufacture it. I know that a steam engine has been manufactured in England, brought here, and laid down 30%. lower than we could manufacture it. think there ought to be an additional duty on machinery.