Mr. KASSON. I believe that from the 1st there has been no member of the ComWays&Means more interested than my self in the question of taxing raw material in the hands of the producer. Upon this question of cotton it has been treated by them and I am willing to accept that proposition as an expectional article that justifies the violation of terules which we have applied to subjects of taxation generall in this country. In the lust Congress I endeavored to apply a similar rule to the production of tobacco, taking it off from the manufactured article and substituting it in a much less amount upon the raw material. The difficulty that we then encountered was the collection of the tax in that form without imposing a burden upon the producer. The same difficulty exists in respect to cotton, and in addition to that there seems to be a difficulty in the minds of many gentlemen in regard to the amount of this taxi.“ Now, one thing I apprehend is conceded on all hands, and that is t iat in respect to certain varieties of cotton, and only in respect to certain varieties, we are without competition in the production of the world. In the long sta ple, the most valuable kind, we have at present no successful competition. But there is in various parts of the world a production of a very large amount of cotton of an inferior quality, the short staple, which, if we tax the raw material too high in this country, will eneroach, I think, upon the monopoly that this country has hitherto enjoyed. The practical question, therefore, in my judgment, is, whether we put the tax so high ason the one hand to develop the production in foreign countries of a superior article, and on the ot ier to compel the increase of the amount of the inferior article in place of that we have hitherto sent into foreign markets from this country. It is upon that point that the principle I maiptain applies. I do not believe that we have a permanent monopoly of the markets of the world in the reduction of cotton to the extent claimed ii some and I am as apprehensive in regar to this as I was on the subject of tobacco, that we may so affect the production of the raw material as actually to develop successful competition and take from ourselves the monopoly in the world that we now have. I should have preferred that the committee had settled upon 3 cents, with a corre s onding drawback on the manufactured arti c e. I think both branches of the subject, the tax and the drawback, should be considered to ether. hope in this as in all similar subjects connected with the material interests of the country, no gentleman will attempt to put it on the groun of vindictive punishment upon the people of the South. It is the most dangerous element that we can introduce into our deliberations upon this as well as all other subjects. I say this for fear that some at of least my associates upon this floor may think that cotton will bear any amount of taxation we choose to put upon it, and that the burden will fall on the South. We in the North, who consume most largely, ay the burden in the 1st instance, and then the foreign consumers ay the residue of the burden in the 2nd instance, after the drawback is allowed on the manufactured article. I hope, therefore, that the tax will not be increased above 5 cents, nor decreased below 3 cents, and for myself, I should prefer to start the experiment on the grade of 3 cents.