Mr. DIXON. The fact just stated by the Senfrom NewJersey is true to my knowl edge. During the continuance of the reciprocity treaty these quarry companies did pass their dividends entirely. The Senfrom Maine has stated that they were prosperous under that treaty while they had no protection. That is not the case; he has been misinformed; and I will state now, without going further into this subject, that it is, as the Senfrom NewJersey has said, wholly a question of the protection of American labor. The difficulty is that the prices of labor are so greatly increased by I may almost say the action of the Government the consequences of the war, the inflation of the currency, and the great internal taxes; all these causes which have raised the expenses of living have increased the price of labor so that they are paying now $2.50 a day for laborers of the same class who are employed in the Nova Scotia quarries at 75 cents a day. It is perfectly evident that the company cannot compete with the quarries of Nova Scotia with that distinction in the prices of labor, and all they ask is such a rate of duty as shall make in some degree an equilibrium with regard to labor. They ask for this amendment 4 dollars per ton, or 4 dollars per 13 cubic feet of stone. I notice by this bill that another article, which is very similar to this in many respects as a building material, is taxed, the very lowest and cheapest kind I allude to marble eight dollars aton. This is as much a luxury as marble; it is used mainly for the facings of buildings: a thin veneering of it is Fo on a building precisely as marble is used. I cannot see why there should be so heavy a protective duty upon marble and no protective duty upon this article. The Senfrom Maine said the other day it paid no internalrevenue tax. There again the Senator is misinformed. Every building which is erected of this stone or faced with this stone is treated as a manufactured article and ys a duty of 5%, and the contractor is obliged to consider that in his estimates, and he does; so that the Government receives upon every one of these stone buildings or brown stone fronts a duty of 5%. on the value of this article. Only a word more with regard to one single point for I do not feel able to say much at this time with regard to this being a building may terial which ought not to be heavily taxed because we do not desire to discourage building. ere is a misunderstanding with regard to that. A large portion of this stone, is sold at a very cheap rate; a very large portion of it is actually given away; all the loose rubble stone is allowed to be taken from the quarries for absolutely nothing. Then again, the large blocks of stone which every Senator has seen laid as the foundation of large buildings pay at the quarry only one dollar a ton. It is sold at that low rate. Why is it that the worked stone is so much more expensive? For the very reasonthe Senfrom NewJersey has stated: because of the labor upon it. After having ‘and taxed that we are obli obtained it from the quarry you then place upon it the labor of hewing and it rises in value, and is sold at the quarry for one dollar a ton, 13 cubic feet, and in NewYork at $1 35. Now, with regard to the allegation that Nova Scotia stone is a better article, I will say as the Senfrom NewJersey has stated, that it is a little easier wrought; and it is used some what for ipurposes; but I do not think people will obtain any advantage by increasing. importations of Nova Scotia stone and destroying our own quarries. The result of that would be to compel consumers to pay the same rate that the Nova Scotia stone would cost if our own brown stone was excluded from the market. When that happens the owners of the Nova Scotia quarries will raise their prices to Pool. just about the same that the owners of the brown stone quarries now ask. If there is in this bill anywhere a question of protection it is raised upont his very point. The stone is valueless as it lies in the quarry, and it only becomes valuable by a very large amount of labor being bestowed upon it; and for that reason we ask what I think is a reasonable amount of protection, 4 dollars per ton of 13 cubic feet.