Mr. GRIMES. I do not know, Mr. President, that it will be in order for me to discuss the general merits of this proposition on such a motion as this; and I have no disposition to do so, even if it were in order, but. I wish to submit one or 2 observations in connection with the motion that I have made. We are now in the 8th month of a very long and arduous session of Congress. The members of this body have been laboriously engaged, more laboriously than ordinarily, during that long period of time. This tarilf bill, which affects the prosperity of the country and the personal and business interests ofcvery man in it, reaches us at this late period, and I undertnke to say that the members of this body are not prepared to enter upon the consideration on discussion of such a subject as this is, alfectin the vital interests that it does, at this time. think that a bill making such radical changes as this bill proposes to make should be laid a sufficient fength of time before the people of the country in order that there may 0 some response from them as to what their judgment is of the merits of the proosition. Another reason why I think it should be post poned is that we should give an o)portunity for our ComFinances and the Treasury Detp, the men who have the charge of our nanccs, and the people of the country themselves, to see what may be the effect of the internalrevenue law which we have recently passed. I am convinced, for myself, that that law will afford sufficient relief to all the industrial interests that are sought to be protected by the provisions of the bill now on your table. I understand from a gentleman who has made a most thorough irtvestioation and in whose 5 z:. conclusions an whose judgment I place the most implicit reliance, that under the provisions of that law there will be a relief to the industrial interests of the State of Pennsylvania alone of from 18 to 25 millions on the 3 articles of coal, iron, and stee. Another reason why I desire that this bill should be postponed is that we may know whether or not it is to effect the advantages which some of its advocates claim that it will effect in some sections of the country. We were told, as I see by the newspaperse I did not happen to be present at the time by the Senfrom Massachusetts, [liMr. WiLsox] the other day, that this was a northwestern measure, and I think that there were 2 members of a coordinate branch of this Government who stated in another body that this was a north western measure. It may be, Mr. President, but we have not thus far, been able to conceive it to be that kind of a measure, and we want an opportunity to satisfy our constituents, if it be to their advantage, that it is going to operate to their advantage. As an evidence that we do not so regard it, I would refer the Senfrom Massachusetts to the vote in another body, to which, perhaps, I have no right specifically to allude, where he will find that although the NewEngland States voted solid for it, it being a northwestern measure, yet of the 52 votes that were polled against it 40 of them were from the Northwest. I am not oing to deny that there maybeindividualsin‘t e Northwest and there may be individual interests in the Northwest that may conceive that they will be advantaged by the passage of such a bill as this upon your table; but I do deny that there is any very considerable portion of that part of the Northwest which I represent that is in favor of any such proposition at this time. It run be possible that afterdue consideration autf discussion of this measure they may conclude that it would be to their advantage to pass such abill; but I think that it will be some time before we shall be able to bring the people of the Northwest up to the belief that it is to their advantage to increase the duty on salt, an essential to their existence and their ros perity, 33%. I do not believe that you can convince the people of my State that it will be to their advantage to put a duty upon that necessary to the development of their State, lumber, without which they cannot fence up their farms and make them reductive of a single cent, of 3 dollars/1000. I do not believe that you can convince the peeple of my State that it will be to their advantage to increase the duty on iron variously from ten to 50 dollars a ton; or that itwill be for their advantage to increase the duty on the low grades ofcutler, such as go into every farmer’s house, 600%.