Mr. MORRILL. Mr. Chairman, we are all fully aware of the ability and the tenacity of purpose of the Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. gemmom] He does not yield a hairs breadth even when the committee are disposed to accommodate him. I rather think, owever, that the ComWays&Means have investigated this subject more extensively than the Gentfrom the Dayton district of Ohio, [Mr. Sonnse x] who appears to have looked at it only on the side of the lowest priced tobacco. It is an old subject, and one which has been investigated at every session of Congress for the last 4 ears, and one not without its perplexities. but having tested various provisions of law, tried each in turn, we ought now to profit by experience and hold fast to that which proves the best.The gentlemans colleague [Mr. LAWRENCE] stated that the revenue commission, who had made a report on this subject, had not visited the West. The gentleman was mistaken. The revenue commission did not make any report on this subject, not having the time to devote to it. If they had had more time they doubt less would have fully investigated this question, as they did others. They commenced upon the subject, and took considerable testimony, which will doubtless be of value hereafter, if opportunity shall be given for the complete investigation of the whole question. The Gentfrom . Ohio proposes to go back to a system of legislation which we have already tried and found it almost an entire failure. The universal testimony of all the assessors, collectors, ins ectors, and other revenue Officers here atWrashington is against the proposition. Let me, as an illustration, show what the result was when we had a grad uationof tax upon cigars. Take the year 1864. The tax upon cigars at 3 dollars yielded about $1, 200,000; at 8dollars, $1, 108, 743 78; at 15 dollars, $386, 978 42; at 25 dollars, $73, 442; and at 40 dollars, 89, 462. This shows conclusively the result of grading the tax will be that almost every cigar taxed will be taxed at the lowest duty. I have a letter from a tobacco manufacturer at Detroit asserting the same fact. He goes on to say: " When I called on youhicsdsylast on the tobacco it! I forgot to lay a word regarding the cigar tax. I am not a manufacturer of ci. but deal in them quite largely, and I noticed when we had the gradu ntiinztax that it madeno difference what price we gflltl for the cigars the stain s werealways the 3 dollar stamp. I am oppose m Info to a graduatin tax. Whatever tux you put on have ituniform. you adopt the graduated tax you Will make a mistake. I believe cigars will payaten dollar tax easier than any other." Now, gentlemen may suppose I am adhering a litt e too closely to the hill in not allowing or consenting to further excmtions and further reductions. Let me read a etter from a western collector. He says, in effect, that at the next session of Congress we shall have to go back to the old rates of taxation, and declares our bill will produce much less revenue than is antincipatd. He advises that we move slowly. Ho ase says that the Commissioner is now making it far less stringent enforcement of the law this ear than last, and that this will make a wide difference in the revenue. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am opposed entirely to the rate offered by the Gentfrom Ohio, and to his whole system of estimating the amount of tax on the value ofcigars excluding the tax, on the market value. There is no market value except upon cigars which have aid:1tax. It is against the law that they shall lie offered in market except those which have paid the tax. Therefore the gentlemans ub surdity rests upon his own shoulders entirely. Here the hammer fell.] Mr. PAINE. I differ altogether with the chairman of the ComWays&Means as to the experience which the Government has had under the late law and under the law now in force. He has told you, and others have told me 20 times since this discussion commenced, that the old cigar tax was a failure, and that the system now in force is far preferable to that or any other. Now I say, sir, that the experience under the law enacted in 1864, and in force for a great part of 1865, and the experience of the country since the law of 1865 went into force, all go to show that the old law is better than the new one. I will refer to the figures. Let us refer to the taxes collected on cigars during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865. For the 1st 3 quarters these taxes were collected under the old and not under the new law, and I call the attention of the committee to the result. The following e the figures which come to us in the report of the ComrIntRev, and from the assertions reiterated again and again in this House I appeal to the figures of that report. In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1865, the old law yielded, from cigars alone, a revenue of $3, 048, 127 66. That law was relaced by the law now in force, which took effect April 1, 1805. that is to say, at the commencement of the 4th uarter of the fiscal year 1865. But the new aw, which was in force during the last quarter, yielded only $24, 348 90. Gentlemen will see that the old law was twofold more productive than the new law during the same period of time. Now, when we come down to the fiscal year ending the 30th of June, 1800, and contrast the revenue yielded by the new law, for the 1st 3 quarters ening on the 31st day of March last, with the revenue yielded in the fiscal year 1865 by the old law, which expired at the end of the 1st 3 quarters of 1865, we find the following results, which I read from a statement furnished me by the comrIntRev. The old law yielded $3, 048, 1266, and the new law only $2, 556, 518 70. From all these figures I say it cannot be demonstrated that the old law was a total failure and the new law a complete success. I appeal from the assum )tlOIlS and assertions of those who clamor so oudly against an adealorem or a graded tax to the facts and figures of the Commissioner himself. On the contrary, sir, considering the disadvantages under which that law operated, I declare my conviction that it unmistakably demonstrated the sufferiority of an advalorem or graded tax to this dead level duty of the committee. For, under that law, where there was a gradation, and where the taXes were assessed on different values, it was, as a matter of course, necessary that there should he avast amountof machiuery suggested and perfected by exerience, and put in force by wellJprepared reguations. But such machinery was utterly wanting. That system had to run alone, so faras regulations were concerned. It only run 3 quarters of a year, and there was no perfection in the instrumen talities for working out its results. Here the hammer fell.]