Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1883-09-07


sized its opposition to the wool interests by re-
ncwng the old proposition. Senator Baynrd,
on the 9th OF February, 1888, when the senate
had under consideration the General Tariff
Bill, offered an amendment to reduce the duty
to twenty-five per ccntum ad yalorom, and In
support OF his amendment said: II believe
That IL Is all essential for the success OF manu-
facturers in this country that there should be
q chcopening Of the raw material The cost OF
the raw material of wool should be lesscnod 10
the manufacturer, and the best way to do that
is to give him the widest possible field OF selcc-
ton" That Is remove all duty and give him
absolute free trade in wool. How would the
wool-growcrs enjoy this kind OF protcctionp
This eminent Democrat seems to have had
great core for the manufacturers. This was
his deepest concern, while the Ohio Demo-
cratic platform rails with dreadful emphasis
against the manufacturers. This amendment,
like the first one, was beaten by Republican
votes Again, In the course of the considera-
ton OF the Tariff bill, Mr.. npck offered an
amendment to make the dividing lines be-
tween first and second class woods thrty-two
cents instead OF thirty, as recommended by the
Finance Committee, and hc did IL, using his
own language, because the changing of clussi-
| fication from thirty-two TO thirty cents might
make q very large increase in duty which
was not intended. Again our Democratic
decreased duty on wool. II there is
any ono thing settled in the policy of the DEM
ocratc party, it is that all raw material which
| enters into manufactures shall bear no import
duties. but be absolutely FREQ. Mr.. Beck said,
February @, 1888: IL do not propose TO make
wool FREQ. l wish II could be done"
Mr.. Springer, OF Illinois, member of the
House when the conference report was under
consideration, said:
al do not complain of the reduction of tho
tariff on wool. In fact, am in favor of a
rapid reduction of the rates OF the tariff OF
wool, and the placing of the product on the
| free list within very few years. There is nc
change in tho tariff that will produce greater
benefits to the people than the placing OF wool
and raw materials entering into the manufac
ture OF WOODEN goods upon the free list. Nc
industry would be impaired, but all would be
protected and encouraged
On the a0th of March, 1882, MIR. Abrau
Hewitt, OF New York. conspicuous Democrat
and dcservedly SO, offered tile following reso
luton: That all raw materials" meaning
thereby all materials which have not been sub
waste PRODUCES meaning thereby all vast,
materials which arc fit only to bo manufac
tured, shall be placed upon the free list ,n anG
said upon the floor of the House, speaking tc
that resolution: 81 am absolutely IN favor o
the abolition OF the duty on wool Mr.. BayarC
said in the course OF the debate: II alwayl
thought, and think now, that the tax upon raw
| wool is an absolute absurdity for the American
! people to impose | might multiply these dec
larations Of Democratic leaders 10 az
extent which would consume al
the. time am justified ia uslnI
to-day. These, however, are sufficient to Civ
the unquestoned DRIFT OF Democratic senti
ment Tor free wool, and are enough 10 adyis
you that with an opportunity, With majority
in the House and Senate. they would put thi
valuable American product upon the free list
and open up the American market 10 the de
structiye competition OF foreign woolS
Before the passage OF the new Tariff Bill
Sen0tor sherman, on the 10th OF February
lSs3, offered an amendment to fix the duty ol
wool ut twelve and fourteen cents per pound
instead of Ten and twelve cents, but thre
Democrats voted in favor of IT, fourteen Re
publican- and tWeniV-SiN Democrats against ir
Again Senator Bayard's anxiety for the man
ufacturos appeared when he complained tina
the step OF the honorable senator from Obi
i step backward-a step 10 porpctnate th
disabilities of the American manufacturer
Mr.. Baynrd said on the 18th ol February, il
opposing the sherman amendment, The mod
ihcalions proposed hy the Senate bill, agreed I
in the Committee of the Whole, and again COZ
i)rmed in the Senate, and nov proposed 10 IA
reopened, is very slight II is very moderate
as moderate any other reduction IN TN
whole scale al the tariff duties-but two cent
upon pound. / should describe the amend
, ment Of the honorable senator from Ohio a
an amendment 10 produce an additional oil
struction To the manufacture Of wooden eooo
, in this country. This tarti.-an excessive tari
upon raw wool, has been utterly delusive in il
results to the wool grower And right her
let me diycrge n moment 10 say that the thir
plank OF the Democratic platform which d
claTes The act OF the Republican Con
gress reducing the tariff ON wool, while at I'll
; same time increasing il on woucn coo'
already highly protected, was iniquitous legi'
lation, discriminating in favor OF a monopoi
and against the agricultural Interests ot n
country, and ought 10 be corrected, Is gross
false III its assertion If So distinguished q Den
ocrat as senator Bayard was intelligent an
honest III dealing with his fellow senate
when he answered the following question pl
10 him by Mr., Mayey, OF Texas. Mr.. Make
said: The Senator from Delaware is \ men
her of the Committee on Finance, and as
, him whether in his judgment in the arran
ing and balancing of the schedules the tariff
laid in the bill before MS on wool IS raiablc an
equitable in proportion to the tariff ON woOlt
goods? The answer 20 that will cOntr
- me in my vote on the Sherman amendment
AIr. Bayard said: Il consider that the lar
on wool is in greater proportion than that upc
d the woolen mGnufactures.n In th
4 contradiction OF essential facts ! lea
Y Senator Bayard 10 harmonize tho
1t respective statements. They are members
d the same political family, and would N
= rashly intrude upon their family difference
7 1t is needless for mo 10 say that everything "
n done in the Senate by Senator sherman al
Is others TO give the wool growers just a;
>. adequate protection to their products In q
House no direct votes were had upon the wo
80 schedule, before IL was Teicntu Abc
u Bill had passed the Senate. II came TO c
o House, and thereafter all action in that bo,
- was had upon the Senate bill and conferen
'e report as n whole. 1t may be proper, howcvC
ct 10 state that the Ways and Means Commit
y of the House, majority Of which was Repu
10 lican, voted authorizing one OF its mcmbe
GO when the wool schedule was reached in I
" House, 10 offer an amendment which proyid
n for the retention OF the wool tariff OF i y
II Every Republican OF that committee voted
- favor OF that amendment and but one Democi
Vi ON that committee voted for II; and this VI
Is fairly represented the sentiments OF the Z
"a parties in the House. l have gone into Il
N. matter at this great length and with partiC
" larity OF detail so that there might be no III
le understanding OF the true position OF I
=, :a Democratic party on the wool tariff. ! f
oo justified therefore, in saying that II the Den
cratic party instsad of the Republican had
q, vised the tariff in 1888, wool would either hn
Us been put upon the free list, or what VOL
o, ., have been practically the same duty OF two
~ .. ty or twenty-five per cent. would have be
~ imposed. And but for the aim,
Us even division of the Senate poll
er cally the old tariff on wool VOL
~ have been maintained and no cause for co
NJ NJ plant been given 10 the wool growers al
in where. The Republicans failed to get all III
1c believed they were entitled 10. They strugg
isv hard for the duties upon all American p
III ducts which they believed to be right,
10 borne down by force they could not contr
iis were compelled TO accept the best result alta
,iy able.
he
al TILE cnNrr Au