Mr. MYERS. They were conventions of the manufacturers of tobacco. But it is no matter of whom the conventions were composed if the tax they propose is just and if it will enable the Government to get as much revenue as by the proposition of the committee. Now, who is there to complain of a tax of the kind I have suggested? Certainly the Government should not, for by this means the Government would receive the tax earlier than in the other way; and it would receive it more surely, because there are not half as many avenues for fraud at the 1st production of the article as there are afterwar. When it is in the course of manufacture the tobacco gees into the hands of 1,000s of operators, who make it up in out of the way places and defraud l the Government. Besides, we shall get a larger share of revenue in this way. According to statistics the production of tobacco in this country in 1865 was 185 million pounds. Deducting 2 l3rds as the amount exported, the revenue from this source at 20 cents perpound, would be $12,000,000, or $1,000,000 more than is received under the present mode of taxation. The revenue commission claim that, the revenue hereafter by the present system lfrom tobacco will be $18,000,000annually; but that is a mere guess. [have only to say that if we can obtain such a sum by that system it must be upon a far greater number of ounds of tobacco than was raised last year. n the year 1860 there were produced in this country 400 million pounds oftobacco, upon which, under the amendmentI have proposed, there would be obtained a revenue of $28000,000. lfho, then, will object to this species of tax? It is said the opposition comes from the to bacco growers and on account of this interest and the fear of seeming to levy any tax on the producers we must desist. Toa similar objection when the cotton question was under consideration the distinguished chairman of the committee replied that the tax need not be paid by the planter; the cotton may be removed from one collection district to anotherin bond and the duties or tax will thus be practically paid by the purchaser. Under my amendment the manufacturer will virtually pay the tax on it when he removes it for consumtion. Then tobacco growers are in the rats of usage, and must be educated to know their own interests. Nor can the consumer find fault; the duty falls on him in eitherinstance, and if no higher it is no matter to him whether it be levied between its growth and manufacture or afterward; but the consumer really pays much less by this levy of 20 cents a pound on the raw tobacco. The revenue commission state that 42, 809.18 pounds of tobacco, “at the present rate of excise, would return an annual revenue of Y $15, 736, 795.” At 20 cents perpound the consumers would pay but little over $8,000,000, and even adding 205%. forlosses in the manufacture on y $12,000,000, the additional tax being necessary under the present system to make up for the amounts which escape the tax. The manufac rers are nearly rostrated at presentand ask or redress. The egitimate consumption of tobacco is notine re than halfwhat it was, Government being a loser equally with the honest manufacturer. The Louisville Board of Trade reported sales of but 35, 112 hogheads oftobacco for the 1stten months of 1805 against 63, 832 for the same months of 1864. For the year 1865 the de crease in the returns of chewing tobacco was 58%., and of smoking tobacco 62%., and all this time many 1,000 empioyes have been thrown out of business. lhe excise on tobacco in the leaf is found to work well in other countries and I hope will yet be adopted here.