Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. President, the Senfrom Indiana tells us that he approaches this question in neither a partisan nor a sectional view, and he closes his remarks with an appeal to the people against the enormities of this tax hill. 0 commenced his remarks by stating that this whole bill is a discrimination against the agricultural interest; and as he and represent agricultural States, and as be prooses ro pose to meet him here at the threshold. p I assert that in this tax bill there is no tax on any production of the State of iodine or Ohio except the tax on whisky; that the whole bill, if‘there is any discrimination at all, is in favor of agriculture; and that most of the relief which is extended by this tax bill is in favor of the interests that he and I represent. As I was a member of the committee that had the consideration of this bill, I can state what Ldo now authoritatively, that there is no tax in this bill affecting any interest of Indiana or Ohio in which we are not relieved to a considerable extent from the previous tax. There is no tax on any production of agriculture of Indiana or Ohio in this bill. Besides that, all the tax on the implements which are used by the farmer in his agricultural production is thrown off. That is a discrimination in favor of the agricultural, interest. The mowingmachine, the rake, the plow, the barrow, and all the multitude of implements that are used. by the farmer, pay no tax. They are relieved from the tax not only on the machine itself, but on the component parts that enter into the machine. The building that is constructed on the farm is free from tax. All the tax is removed from almost every implement of has bandry and almost eyery article that is consumed in the family. Not only that, but when you come to transport the product of the farm from the field where it grows to the consumer in the East and in Europe, the tax is removed from the transportation; so that there is no tax on the prouction of the agricultural art t. cle, or on the tools which produce it, or on the labor which raises it, or on the transportation which carries it to a market. Now, for the honorable Senfrom Indiana to state here, in an evident appeal to the people upon a tax question, that this bill discriminates against the agricultural interest, it seems to me is not exactly fair; and I am therefore rather disposed to question the sincerity of his declaration when he says that he does not look at it in Ia.sectional point of view. did, to some extent, look at this bill in a sectional oiut of view; that is, like every other Senator, Icudeavored to protect the interests of my constituents which are like the interests of the people of lndiana. I endeavored to relieve the great laboring masses of the people from as much of the burden of taxation as possible; and let me say that when this bill goes into operation, nearly all the burden of taxation will fall upon accumulated wealth and upon articles of luxury. The income tax is still continued, which is paid mainly by NewYork and NewEngland, and no relief is given from that tax of 5 and 10%. But a small portion of it is paid in an agricultural community, because in an agricultural community wealth is generally so diversified that comparatively few of our people have more than1,000 dollars’ income, and therefore pay no tax; and then the consumption which enters into the farmer’s expenses, that portion of his product which he consumes himself, is free from tax; so that not one in ten of the constituents of my friendfrom Indiana and myself will pay any income tax. When on come to the luxuries, like tobacco and whis y, it is true tobacco is grown in the West; but it is also grown in the East; it is grown in the South; it is grown in every country; but in this very bill the relief to the to bacco interest is greater than that to any other interest affected by the bill. We justly complained in the West that the uniform tax of one dollar 100on cigars was oppressive and odious, and we have taken care to relieve ourselves from the burden of that tax in a great measure by reducing it to 1/3rd, I believe, of the amount it was in the old law. I think it is now from 2 to 4 dollars1,000 on cigars produced from our products in the West; so that it is reduced some 200 or 300%. So on the cheap tobacco made from our product and consumed by our people for smokin tobacco, the tax is very much reduced; so that in this icultural production we have extended proba 1y as much relief as to any other. Now, when you reach the tax on whisky, it is true that the tax on whisky is not changed. I did not think it was wise to change it. It was said that a la er amount would be consumed if the tax should be thrown off. I think by the tax on whisky we gain in a double sense. We in, 1st, in promoting temperance and so riety among our people. A decrease of the amount of whisky consumed as a beverage is undoubtedly beneficial to us as a nation. It would be better if we could substitute some light drinks, as the Germans do with their beer, or as the French do with their wines, for the use of alcoholic spirits. If we could strike down the whole of this industry founded upon whisky, or so much of it as is consumed by the people as a beverage, it would be better for our people in every sense of the word. But there is no article in the world that can afford to pay a tax so well as the article of whisky. ng laud assesses nearly twice as much upon her whisky as we do upon ours. Now, ccause whisky is made out of corn, and corn is grown in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, is that any reason why we should oppose the tax on whisky? Is that the spirit in which we are to legislate ‘I Are we to refuse to avail ourselves of this ample source of revenue simply because we raise the cm which is consumed, in a great measure, in the production of whisky? certainly not. My friendfrom Indiana will hardly confess that. I have no doubt that the consumption ‘of whisk has been very much reduced by the tax; but is that an objection to the tax? On the other hand, if we could raise all our internalrevenue from tobacco, whisky, and a few articles of luxury, and from the in come tax, we oughtto favor that course, because it is muuifuslly not only for the interest of our own people, but for the interest of the whole country. I then again repeat thatthere is not a single industry of the State of Indiana or the State of Ohio but what will be benefited by the passage of this bill. Every production of our country, every interest of our country, is aided, benefited, and relieved by it. The farmer is relieved, not only of the tax on agricultural products, on implements, and on transportation, but in those vital necessaries which go into the expense of every farmer, on iron, on coal, on those great leading productions of the mines, produced partly in our own country, and consumed there to a great extent, the tax is very much reduced. It will be within bounds to say that if Ohio paid ten millions of tax under the old law, she will not pay over 5 millions now. On the single item of transportation alone we save a tax of $1,000,000. therefore, I say, regarding thisin the light that I do, as a matter in which the people of Ohio are interested, I regard this bill as a very eat improvement upon the bill that now stand; as the law of the land. If this bill should be defeated, the State of Ohio would pay in a single year one or 2 millions more tax, and I have no doubt the State of Indiana would pay one million more under the old law in a single year than under this law. The Senator alludes to the tax on cotton. I agree with him in the main with regard to that. As I was nota member of the committee of conference, it is not for me to discuss the question of the tax now proposed. I suppose it was the result of a compromise, the house.usisting on a tax of 5 cents a pound, and the Senate insisting that it should not be increased. The ComFinance proosed to leave it stand at 2 cents, where it is now, and to provide some mode by which the collection of the tax would be removed from the agricultural producer, and only be levied at the time when it entered into the consumption of the country, either as an article of exart or as an article of consumption in menu actures. That was the proposition of the Senate. The House, it seems, would not agree to that; and the result is a compromise. If there is any mode by which we can keep the tax at 2 cents, and avoid raisin it to 3 cents, I am rather disposed to jom with my friendfrom Indiana in that pro'ect; but it is well known that in a bill like this, involvin a multitude of amendments, several 100 judge from the number acted upon, there must be some yielding by each House. That the tax on cotton is an exceptional tax, that it is probably not justifiable on the principles of political economy, and that it wi I not long continued, I think is generally admitted in the Senate, because it is a tax upon a raw agricult ural product; and that it will soon pass away I have no doubt; but the question is now whether we will continue the controversy with the House, ask another committee of conference, and endanger the passage of this great bill, a grand bill of relief, merely on account of a dispute about imposing, for this year, an additional tax of one cent a pound on cotton. The Senate proposed 2 cents. The Senate by a very large vote yielded the principle of the tax; and the only question‘is, whether it shall be for this year 2 cents or 3 cents a pound. If there can be any way pointed out by which we can reduce the tax to 2 cents, I am disposed to adopt it. The Senfrom Indiana alludes to another subject which is not yet before the Senate, that is the tariff bill now under debate in the HoRep. It seems to me it is rather remature to bring that question here. It is hardly fair to suppose that because the House may aassthe tariff bill in an offensive shape to the Senator, therefore the Senate will do so. He anticipates the action of the Senate. 1 do not think it is fair to do that. I will not follow him in that discussion. When the tariff bill comes here, we can then decide upon the various questions that areinvolved in it. My own idea is that we dare not and will not in the passage of any tariff bill surrender the ample revenue we receive from duties on imported goods. We will not pass any tariff bill which will yield up that revenue on any idea of protection or anything else. If, however, we can levy larger duties on imported goods, yielding us a larger reveuucin gold, without materially disturbing our commercial interests, we will certainly do so; we will be bound to do so. Every civilized country in modern times looks to duties on im orted goods as a fruitful source of revenue. I we can derive all our revenues from duties on imported goods, we are justified in doing so. That has been the policy for years and no nation will ever resort to a system of internal taxation when it can raise sufficient revenue by duties on imported goods. I believe even the Democratic party would'go so far as to say that all that can be raised from im orted goods for revenue should be raised, rather than to resort to internal taxation. If there are classes of articles the duty on which may be raised by a tariff so as to yield usa greater revenue, we are justified in resorting to such a tariff, and we will 0 so. But the idea that we intend to destroy all the commercial interests of this country, that we intend, at a single blow to destroy all our commerce, and all the revenue from im orted goods, is simply preposterous. I do not clieve that such a p n will be proposed in the Senate, nor acceded to if adopted in the House; but it is sufficient to say that it is premature to discuss that question at this time. The bill will come to us in a few days, and then there will be time enough to discuss that question. I come back to the point that is now under consideration, and that is this: the only point upon which there is a vital disagreement between the 2 Houses, upon which there is probably any disagreement betweeu the Senfrom Indiana and myself, is whethenwe shall ield one cent additional tax on cotton in order to secure the passage of this bill. If he can show me that we can secure the passage of this bill, giving its bountiful relief to all branches of our industrial interests, without yielding to a tax of more than 2 cents a pound on cotton, I will join with him in the effort. But I fear from the statement made to me by the gentlemen who served on this conference committee that the House is set on this proosition, and therefore we should probably endanger the passage of the bill by prolouing the controversy on this point. h