Mr. FOSTER. I move to amend the amendment of the committee by striking out the words “one dollar and 50 cents” in line 265 of section 7 on page 36, and inserting “two dollars;” so as to make the section read: On planter's hoes, or other hoes, wholly or in part of steel or iron, 2 dollars per dozen. In the 1st place, I wish to say that a duty of $1 50 per dozen to the manufacturer is, as I believe, and as I think I can show, little if at all better with the other provisions of this bill than honest free trade would b;e no better than if he made his hoes without any protection and without paying any duties whatever. I wish also to disabuse the minds of Senators, if they have the impression that this is simply a connecticut interest and that I am desirous of benefiting a mere home interest. It is true some of my constituents are interested in the manufacture of these hoes, but so are other sections. There are manufactories of these hoes in the State of Massachusetts, in the State of NewYork, in the State of Pennsylvania, and in the State of Ohio; so that I trust I am not advocating a merely sectional interest. Further, I am asking simply that the amount of duty fixed by the bill of the HoRep cn these articles should be the law. The amendment I propose will only make this bill conform to the House bill on this point. I said I did not think a duty of $1 50 was any if at all better than real free trade, and I think I can show it. I have taken some pains to inform myself on the subject, and if senators will attend to me I think I can convince them that this $1 50 duty is really no protection at all. I differ entirely from the honorable Senfrom Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,) who said the other day that at the present time it seemed impossible to make up a tariff bill that would not be protective. It seems to me not only possible, but that it has been actually worked out; that while we get a tariff bill which I admit imposes very high duties, yet they are laid in such a manner, one so countervailing the other, that many interests, which seem to have ample protection really have no protection whatever; and worse than that, the proposed legislation in some cases discriminates against home labor and in favor of foreign labor, the duty, nominally, being very high. The clause as it stands in the bill proposes a duty of $1 50 per dozen on these hoes. They are manufactured of Swedes' iron; and to make a dozen of the average size of these planter's hoes it takes 28 pounds of iron. These 28 pounds of iron, under the present bill, pay a duty of 35 cents. It takes, in addition, 4 pounds of cast steel, which is imported, and the duty on which is 16 cents. It takes half a pound of borax, the duty on which is 5 cents. It takes a pound of emery, the duty on which is 2 cents. Then there is the wear of the grind stones. Of course you cannot reduce that to an exact figure for a dozen of hoes, as is the case with the other articles I have given; but by an estimate which I believe is accurate 5 cents is given as the proper proportion of the duty on the grindstones used, those being all imported. Summing up these items we have 63 cents as the sum total of those several duties on the articles which go into the manufacture of a dozen of these hoes. Then the internalrevenue tax on this dozen of hoes, which sell on the average for 8 dollars, is 40 cents. The 63 cents of duties subtracted from the $1 50 protection leaves 87 cents. From that, the internalrevenue tax of 5%. on 8 dollars, 40 cents, should be deducted, leaving 47 cents, and that is the whole protection upon a dozen of hoes, if we stop here. This is not all. The coal which is consumed in this manufacture it is not possible of course to deter mine exactly, but we can come pretty nearly to it. An establishment that manufactures 50 dozen of hoes per day, which is a good sized establishment, requires to run its engines 3 tons of coal, and 2 tons more for the other necessary uses of the establishment, heating the hoes, &c., making 5 tons. 5 tons per day in an establishment manufacturing 50 dozen of hoes per day would be one ton to ten dozen of hoes, or 224 pounds per dozen. Then it takes 2 jand 24 pounds of coal, to make a dozen hoes. Now the cost of 224 pounds of coal at tide water, say at NewYork, is 60 cents, at the rate of 6 dollars per ton. At Birmingham, in England, the cost of a ton of coal is 1/3rd of that, 2 dollars, and the cost of 224 pounds necessary for this purpose, 20 cents, making a difference to the American manufacturer on his coal which goes to manufacture a dozen of hoes 40 cents. That is the amount paid by the American manufacturer for his coal over and above what is paid by the English manufacturer. We had 47 cents left as the protection when this, item of coal was taken up, and taking out the 40 cents, which the American manufacturer pays over the English there is left 7 cents, and that is the whole amount of protection given to the American manufacturer on a dozen of hoes that nomi mally are protected by a duty of $1 50. This article requires a great amount of labor, and skilled labor, to manufacture. The cost of the labor on the dozen of hoes which sell for 8 dollars is between 2 and 3 dollars. The cost of manufacturing a dozen hoes is nearly 3 dollars for the labor alone. Now, a duty of $1 50 on a dozen of planters hoes, which cost 8 dollars per dozen in this country, I admit seems quite a large duty; but when we go into the elements which enter into the cost we find that is not a protection of over 7 cents a dozen, instead of $1 50. 5 6th s of these planters' hoes are now imported. The other description of hoes are of no consequence to this argument, for they are not imported. I speak of planters' hoes; they are a very different thing from the ordinary hoe used in the northern States. Under these circumstances I submit that the rate fixed by the House bill 2 dollars per dozen is not too high; on the contrary, it is a bare living protection. The present bill is protective in name, and is intended to be protective in reality; but in consequence of the very high duties on all the materials which go into the production of these hoes the duty amounts to little or no protection at all. I trust that I shall have the aid of my friendfrom Michigan [Mr. CHANDLER) on this subject, for he, as I understand him, is decidedly and strongly in favor of protecting American industry. If I was asking 160%. I should of course want a little of his strength of assurance in order that I might ask it gravely from the Senate. I am asking for no such protection. I endeavored, it is true, to keep an article which had 160%. protection where it was, without having it raised; but against the power and influence of the Senfrom Michigan my effort was unavailing, and instead of 160%. the duty was advanced to something over 200%. Of course I do not complain of that at this time; but I trust the Senate will see that what appears to be protection is made some real protection, and that we shall not be cheated by a name when in reality the legislation discriminates against us instead of for us. I hope there will be no serious objection to the amendment I propose.