Mr. DRIGGS. Then there has been a misunderstanding. I certainly meant to include in my remarks the articles of salt and lumber. As the gentleman exlilains that he did not understand me as including lumber, I of course accc t the explanation. Mr. Chairman, the object of my remarks this morning is with a view of convincing the House that the duty imposed by this bill upon manufactured Canadian lumber is entirely too low to place the American lumberman on an equality with the Canadian. The reasons, Mr. Chair man, why this is so are very plain and simple. In the 1st place the stumpage, as the lumbermeu call it, or the cost of the lumber in the tree, is only about 50 cents per 1,000 feet in Canada, while it is from 2 to 5 dollars in the States. In the next place, the transportation to the entire eastern market is much shorter from the lumber regions of Canada than from the forests of Michigan and Wisconsin. Then the cost oflabor 1n the States over that of Canada, when added to the internalrevenue taxes, makes a difference of at least 2 dollars per 1,000 feet in favor of Canada, and all together a discrimination in favor of Canadian lumber of at least 4 dollars per 1,000. The duty fixed by the committee in the bill under consideration on lumber not worth over 7 dollars per 1,000 is one dollar per 1,000; on all lumber worth not over 12 dollars, nor under 7 dollars per 1,000, 2 dollars per 1,000; while the duty proposed by the amendment is 3 dollars per 1,000 on all manufactured pine lumber. Even this will not, as we claim, be a protective tariff; nor will it place the American laborer on an equal footing with the Canadian; but we hope, )y the superior skill ofour manufactur ers, that they will be able to compete with their Canadian neighbors. Mr. Chairman, it is well known that a supe prior article of white pine east of the Mississippi in our country is found mostly in the States of Michigan and Wisconsin, and that it is rapidly diminishing and passing away, never to be again replaced, it requiring nearly a century for its perfect growth. It is supposed by many that the manufacturing of lumber is a very profita able business; but this is a great mista e, the profits chiefly beingmade by the capitalists and speculators, who stand between the producer and consumer and I assert, Mr. Chairman, what I know to be true, that not 1/2 of the lumber producers of northern Michigan, after pursuing their business for years, have been able to meet their notes at maturity, and that most of them are today oor. I am opposed to an advalorem duty on umber for the reason, mainly, that it will be impossible to have such a duty honestly collected. All the higher qualities imported from Canada will be brought in mixed with the lower qualities, to be so arated and reins ected in the States; and t us all Canadian umber will be brought in at one dollar duty per 1,000, instead of higher duties, as proposed by the bill. To prevent this, Mr. Chairman, it will require a swarm of customhouse officers along the entire border from Lake Superior to Augusta, Maine, whose united salaries would amount tomore than the entire duty collected on importations from Canada. I will add. sir, that the district whichl represent is largely interested in the lumber trade; and that I am as much in favor as the Gentfrom Ohio Or any other of reducing lumber as cheaply as possible. at I promised not to take up muc time, and I will conclude.by offering the following amendment: Page 2. “ line 12. after the word "pine." insert when manufactured into boards or plank, 3 dollars per1000 feet.”