Mr. HUBBARD, of Connecticut. Mr. Chair man, I move to amend by striking out the clause just read. If this motion prevails, the duty on foreign copper ores will remain the same that it now is: namely, at 5%. on the value. I am strongly in favor of a protective tariff; but a proper discrimination must be made between articles that will bear a high duty and articles that will not. All agree that the tax should not fall on the “raw material, ” but should be as far removed from it as rac ticable. I do not expect, under the 5 minute rule, to discuss the great priuci lea of the American protective system. On ookingover the bill presented to us by our very able ComWays&Means I observe with feelings of regret thpt they propose to increase the rates of duty on divers articles which enter into the manufacture of brass goods, socalled, in a manner unprecedented, and to a degree uncalled for by any facts in the case. The present duty on copper ore is 5%. advalorem. The bill before us proposes to increase the duty to 15%. The present duty on copper in pigs, ingots, or bars, is 2 and a half cents perpound. The bill offered us proposes to augment the dut to 5 cents perpound. The present duty on zinc and spelterin blocks 4 pigs is one and 1/2 cent perpound. we increase this duty to 2 and one halfcenis The bill submitted to us recommends that perpound. The duty on zinc in sheets is 2 and one 4th cents perpound, a heavy duty, and certainly all the article will bear; but it is proposed to increase it to 4 cents perpound. I will submit one example more only to illustrate my OWn views of the extraordinary increase of‘ duties proposed by the bill on what the manufacturer deems the raw mate rial he must import from abroad or abandon his business, namely, the case of nickel, on which the present duty is 15% and which the bill proposes to increase to 40 cents perpound. This must be regarded as an extraordinary proposition when it is under stood that less than one 10th part of all the nickel used in this country is made here. I knoiv of nothing in the experience of the past to justify it. The American manufacturer who is compelled to purchase these articles from abroad and use them as “ raw material” is making no money under the present rates. The excise tax he is bound to pay, with the enormous increase of the cost of production, places his business in a most embarrassing condition. One of the most enterprising and skillful of the manufacturers of “brass goods” assured me that his company, with the exercise of the most prudent care, were not able to realize 10%. He assured me that even at the present rates of duty on the foreign material it would be better to place their capital in U.S. bonds than incur the hazard inci dent to all capital embarked in manufactures. And yet it is proposed to duplicate and tripli cate the duties on the material he is compelled to purchase abroad or abandon his business. I presume it is well known that our smelters must have the foreign copper ores to enable them to work the home ores to advantage. I am informed that England imposes no excise tap on the articles named. I am apprehensive, sir, that if the duties are imposed as recommended our countrymen will be driven from the market, and the business of making brass foods will pass into the hands of our enemies. send to the Clerk the following memorial and ask that it be read, as it statesplie case better than I can state it. At the time the memorial was sent me the memorialists did not dream of the additional duties now recommended, but sought relief from the burdens stated in their address.,