Mr. wOODBRIDGE. For the purpose of replying to the Gentfrom Ohio,[Mr. GARFIELD] 1 move to amend the amendment by striking out the last word. Mr. Chairman, [am quite surprised at the remarks which the gentleman has just made. I l I rise to oppose the Gentfrom Vermont, think that the idea advanced by him is a new offspring of his brain; for when I spoke to him in reference to this matter 2 or 3 days ago, he conceded that there was eminent propriety in such an amendment as I have proposed. But it seems the gentleman has just discovered that a desire to avoid such a system as that proposed in the amendment was the reason which induced the ComWays&Means to propose a reduction of the tax on scales from 6 to 3%. advalorem. Now, sir, my impression is that the reason actuating the committee in making this reduction was the propriety and justice of a policy of reduced taxation upon articles in general use and necessary for the increasing business of the country, and that they found that such a reduction could be made without interferin with the collection of the ncedful amount O revenue for the support of the Government. It appears to me that the amendment which I propose will not involve us in any such dilli enlties as the Gentfrom Ohio apprchends. The various articles used in the manufacture of scales are ordinarily made and finished in the shop where the scales are constructed. They are subject to a separate taxation " and then when put into the scales are taxc over again at the rate of 3 crCent. on their value. My amendment will not increase in the least degree the difficulty of collecting the tax. The trouble will be just as great whether the amendment is passed or not. These various articles are manufactured in large quantities and are used as scales are constructed, and there can be no difficulty in designating how much of this or that article is used in the construction of one or 50 or 500 scales. So that the argument of the gentleman amounts to nothing. It is always best to do right when we know what right is. A tax is always a blow and a burden. It is necessary to be imposed for the support of the Government, and is a just bur den upon the subject in consideration of the protection which Governmentaffords; butcer tainly it is unwise and unjust to duplicate taxation. If it were necessary to impose a tax of 6%. on scales I am the last man that would object to it. I am for taxing all articles sufficiently and with discrimination and discretion to raise the revenue that Government requires: butiu imposing the tax I would do justice to all and injustice to none as far as possible and I assert it as a principle that there should not be duplicate taxation where it can possibly be avoided. Now, I know that the manufacture of scales in this country has not been a remunerative business. There is one firm in my State which has existed 30 years or more, and has amassed a fortune. There are other scales coming into use made by other manufacturers. There is one new manufactory within my own district, whereI know there has been no money made as yet; no dividend has been aid upon the stock. I also happen to know that I have had some stock of that kind myself which turned out as my investments usually (lo not a dollar of interest and a loss of the principal. I hope this amendmentwill be adopted), because it is right. It is not class legislation, norlegislation for the benefit of individuals, but the assertion of a principle.