Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to occupy much time with an further remarks upon this bill; and I shall as a division on those amendments only which I deem of vital consequence; and even upon those ldo not propose to ask the ycas&nays if ii on a fair (liVlSIOIl there shall be a decided majority one way or the other. There are some points in reference to which I think the House, upon a “ sober 2nd thought, ” will come to the conclusion not to concur with the ComWhole. One of these was in relation to the right of gas companiesto charge over the amount of the tax to consumers. They have this right under the existing law. At the time the provision in the present law was adopted, it was very successfully defended by the Gentfrom Pennsylvania, [Mr. Siruvnmn the chairman of the ComAppropriat. I find, by various letters which I have received from different parts of the country, that the amendment to the bill, if allowed to remain as reported from the ComWhole, will e very oppressive upon many gas companies. I will rea what is said by the resident of the Gas Company at Covington. I Kentucky: "Our company has never beenable at an time to declare more than 4%.dividen s on the capital actually investedin the construction of the as works. The price to be charged for gasis fixed y legislative charter at 3 dollars per 1,000 feetforprivate consumersand$15oper 1,000 feet for pub 10lumps. The cost of manufacturing gasfor the year 1865was $22oper 1,000 feet. as shown by the secretarys report for that year: so that the stockholdersderivo but a very small profit. without a direct tax being imposed on gase ompaniesas proposedby the actionof Congress. They are indirectly taxed fully as much as other manufacturers.” I have here also a communication from the Pittsburg Gas Company, by which it appears that they are obliged by their charter to furnish gas to private consumers at a price not exceeding $1 60 per 1,000 feet; that they are compelled to furnish to the city 12,500,000 cubic feet free of charge, and all over that quantity at 75 cents per 1,000 feet; and that the revenue tax amounts to 56%. on the companys net receipts. Iwill say, also, in relation to this article, that it is a manufacture; and I see no reason why the parties should be restricted as to their prices. The public can consume the gas or not, as they please. I do not for myself see why we should not leave these parties in precisely the same condition in which they would)be without the tax being levied upon them. The next question upon which I shall ask a separate vote is the paragraph in relation to miners; forisee no reason why those persons engaged in a profitable branch of business should be exempted from taxation, while parf tics engaged in other branches of industry far less profitable are taxed. I Another question is the one in relation to reapers, threshingmachines, and mowers. certainly it seems to me that if we are about to exempt any agricultural imlements it should be those that are daily use by the common laboring man, not those used by men of large means, 0ing land in large parcels, and with sufficient capital to invest in expensive machinery. I trust, therefore, that the House will consent. that the articles I have named shall be subjected to a tax of 3%., and not be entirely exempt. vWe have passed through the bill, and in our progress have made amendments which reduce the revenue in every direction. It may not attract. much attention here, but it will be sensibly felt and known at the Treasury Dept at the end ofanother year. There was a provision struck out on motion of the Gentfrom Pennsylvania [Mr. STEVENS] that journeymen cigarmakers should make returns once a month of the cigars which they manufactured. Unless that provision is allowed to remain you will strike at a vital art of the law. That return is the only absolute check we have against fraud in the manufacture of cigars. I trust when we reach that portion of the bill the House will vote unanimously to retain it. We new come, Mr. Speaker, to the subject of tobacco. On that subject I am aware there is a considerable sensitiveness in some portions of the House in relation to the proper tax on smokiiitobacco and cigars. I desire to say to the louse the law as it has hereto fore stood has made too great a difference in favor of smoking tobacco as avainst cigars, yet the ComWho e have gone still further in the same direction and reduced the rate upon smoking tobacco so that the disparity will be largely increased. The tax is now 35 cents perpound, and onlyten is proposed. I trust we shall not allow anything of that kind to prevail. Leave the rate at 20 cents perefiound as proposed by the ComWhole and you will satisfy the trade and get some revenue but not otherwise. I am satisfied gentlemen from all parts of the country are sufferin under a delusion as to the point of the grie in this whole matter. The real point of suffering is the insufficient duty on the low priced cigars imported, and until we reach that there will be no remedy for the growers of tobacco or the manufacturers of tobacco or cigars.