Mr. RAYMOND. I move, profor 1nd, to strike out the word “exported” from the amendment of the Gentfrom Maine, [Mr. Limou] I do it merely for the puruse of having an opportunity of saying that Itink there is much in the argument of the Gentfrom Illinois [Mr. hIARRHALl] that is entirely mislaced. he a peal that he makes on behalfo the poor of this country is entirely misplaced, is based on a wrong estimation of the facts. He asserts that cotton goods are used exclusively by the poor, while the rich use linen, silk, and other expensive articles. Now, while it is true that the poor use little but cotton, it is also equall true that the rich use far more cotton than the poor do, and pay far more of the tax upon cotton in proportion. Now, l desire to call the attention of the gentleman and of the House to this fact in addition. If this section of the bill stood by itself, and there were no compensating clauses in other parts of the bill, there might be some force in the argument of the gentleman. But as we go on through the bill we will find various sections bearing almost exclusively upon the wealthier classes of the community. this not right, therefore, to make an argument against any particular section because it a lies to a certain class more than to another. hen we come to the portion relating to the income tax we will find enough to offset anything that may be in this section. I trust the argument brought tobear against this particular section will not be considered to have any special weight. It seems to me that it is important to allow a drawback on cotton exported when manufactured in order to enable our manufacturers to compete with the manufacturers of other nations in forei markets. We have hitherto had access to the markets of China and the Indies for our poorer qualities of cotton goods, and have held our own there against the looms of England and other nations. In order to maintain that as cendeucy we must allow a drawback on goods exported. It seems to me but simple justice to our manufacturers, who export to orei markets where they must contend with the manufacturer of England, to allow the draw back here proposed. It is not an excessive drawback. A [those who testified in favor of a tax upon cotton also testified that in order to maintain our foothold in those markets a draw back cqnivalenlto the excise tax will be absolutely necessary. I now withdraw my amendment to the amendment.