It is not pretended to maintain that the present duties on iron are not too high in general for a permanent rate, and that the distribution of their rates is not injudicious. All that we would contend for is, that there shall be no sudden change in the principle, by which a valuable branch of industry would be at once destroyed beyond the possibility of re-establishment. We have been able to discover no argument in the blacksmith's petition, or in the report of the majority of the committee of the Senate, in favour of an entire repeal of duty on raw iron, that does not apply equally to the articles manufactured from it; and we presume that those useful and respectable mechanics would think their principles carried a step too far, should they be made to bear upon the fabrics of their own industry. We are willing, in addition, at once to admit that where the scale has been founded upon improper principles, it ought to be instantly changed. To attain the first object, as we presume it will not be contended that iron shall ever be imported free of duty, while the nation needs a revenue to meet its current expenditure, let a minimum be fixed beyond which it shall not descend, and which will, evidently, when correctly viewed, place our consumers of iron on an equal footing with those who pay direct taxes in other countries; to this minimum, after a certain definite period, let the duty be gradually and almost insensibly reduced. Less than twenty-five years would probably be insufficient to effect this without incurring a wanton waste of property. We are aware, indeed that our national legislature can perform no act which its successors may not annul, but a hearty concurrence on the part of Mr. Dickerson and Mr. Hayne, representing, as they do, the two great opposing interests in this question, would be a pledge that might be acted upon by capitalists. The expediency of investment would then become a subject of strict calculation, and we do not fear the result.