The Senator dwells much on the importance of a tax on cotton. The subject was fully canvassed yesterday, and the vote of the Senate was against him. He now seeks a re-hearing out of the ordinary course. Would it not be better, if his proposition were postponed to the next stage of the bill, when it will be strictly in order? Meanwhile, in pursuance of my promise to be brief, I content myself with saying, that the desire of the Senate to tax cotton is no reason why they should refuse to tax the claim of the slave-master. The two are not in any way dependent upon each other. Let the Senator from Ohio carry his cotton tax, if the Senate agree with him. But, Sir, I insist, that, whether cotton is taxed or not, the claim of the slave-master shall not be permitted to escape. I do not say the property, but I say the claim. It ought to be taxed, not only for revenue, but also for the discouragement it will fasten upon an odious pretension, which has been to us the fountain of trouble and war. Mr. Sherman’s motion to strike out the tax on slave-masters and insert the tax on cotton was then lost,--Yeas 15, Nays 22. * * * * * Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, then moved to amend the amendment of Mr. Sumner by adding,-- “_And provided, further_, That the tax herein prescribed shall not be levied or collected in any State where a system of gradual emancipation may have been adopted at the time of the collection.” May 29th, this was lost,--Yeas 15, Nays 20. Then, on motion of Mr. Fessenden, Mr. Sumner’s amendment was further modified by substituting a tax of “two” dollars, instead of “five,” on account of each slave. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner assigned the reason for the higher rate. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] said that he had looked simply at the revenue to be obtained by a tax. But, pray, will not a larger revenue be obtained at the rate of five dollars than at the rate of two? There are the slaves,--count them, and tax them. The process is simple, with no chance of evasion. Besides, Sir, I cannot forget, nor can the Senator, that throughout our history we have heard constantly of “incidental protection.” But, if incidental protection is just and expedient, then is incidental discouragement, and the tax I propose may be sustained on this ground. We do not hesitate to tax whiskey and tobacco as luxuries, indulgences, vices. Why should we hesitate to tax the worst luxury, the worst indulgence, the worst vice of all, which is Slavery? Therefore, for a double reason, first, for the sake of revenue, and, secondly, for the sake of discouragement to Slavery, I am for the larger tax. After further debate, the question was taken on the amendment of Mr. Sumner as modified, and resulted, Yeas 14, Nays 22. So the amendment was lost. * * * * *