The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1884-04-08

wool INDUSTRY was the largest
s'nrls ilidussry In the United States
rhero wee i,020.723 nooks OF sheep
In the country, ,Dd the annual product
amounted To si5O,000,0c0. IL furnished
employment 10 more than = CO Go men,
men. What was the effect Of tho gentle.
mans proposition The gen tlemsn quoted
England ~ an example. Did not
the gentleman knew, did not every
one know that Ame,icen tree trade
IN cant British protection. (Applsnse prin
cpalIy on the rem olican eide Did not
ever Jone know that whom the tNiN ON
wool was cut down 30 much money WAS
put into the pockets OF hs Bdtisbsrs IN
Australian His colleague was entirely
mistaken when he talked about ibe fnre
% wool. There was a liner fibre produced
In Australia, but suoerior, more elastic
iibre cosld bs produced within The states
Of Prnnsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia.
Michigan and Vermont The wool farmers
had been sent by oil other industries put
together. Thew had represented that II
the wool tariff were not restored the
industry must necessarily 30 into
a decline for tho reason that
10 Australia, where they had perennal
Tor n 800 year. The Qusstio was not
whether there should bs oheav wool and
cheap clothing, but whether tho Industry
should be preserved Tor our own poo'
pie. Ia a lew ytars ~ the
tariff could be kept At what
II was Ia 1867 the United States would be
able 10 control its own markets without n
ta-'H hut In the present condition OF
THINGS our wool must be driven necessarily
from the markc,. In past years they had
lost over 81 100 0cD on account Of the re-
duolion OF duty. IL did sfiect the price OF
clothing. The money wss taken out
OF the pockets OF tho farmers for
the baneliL OF nobody except spectators,
traders and the 20 600 wooden manulactur-
ers OF the couatry. His colleague said The
msnuiacl could work up 6OO0OOCO
pounds oil wool, and he wanted The ma
cbinery put ia motion, while 2, I 1900 men
who were 10 furnish the raw
material were to be deprived OF
their ights. This theory OF a free raw ma
terial was fallaoy.
The motion was then lost-yeas, 10;
nays, 1876.
Thompson. Of Kentucky, moved to sus-
pend the rules and adopt q resolution de-
clariDg 1t uuwlse and inexpedient for con-
sress TO abolish or reduce the tax on spirits
distilled from grain.
In the brief debate which followed York
mott and advocated the entire repeal Of
the internal laws,
White also opposed the motion aud IA.
yored reduction Of the tax on distilled
ssirli after January LIST, 1887 10 = CENTS
Ter gallon and change OF the ex'
e Tax shall b. aid within sixty days after
the spirits have beel put on bond.
Wills supported 20 motion, saying he
did not sympathi. with the gentlemen
who desired TO reduce The price OF
whisky. lie sto' TO- dear whisky. IL YVES
luxury lad a proper subject for texation.
He did not think the threat OF repeating the
tax should 90 held over disillers, dis
turbing ttelr business.
KessDu favored tue motion on the ground
that the whisLey indr Y wrq liable
20 serious fnanci i distutoinces rs long as
the question remnns in doubt Tao last
Internal tax TO be taken Off should be the
tax on wniskey.
Sprineer thought The great ma OF tho
people desired 10 have whisky taxed, and
he wanted ,rgrs s, TO give notice ut this
tax Of $40 t00C00 sould remain on the
statute book until the public debt xas paid
and the people could get cseaper blankets
end cheaper necessaries.
The nation was agreed to and The reso
luton Gdopted--yess, l70, NAYS, 81.
Kellogg Introduced the following bills,
Ich we're referred TO the commerce COM
Mit,ar For the improvement OF Bayou
plaouamins and for u lock at tie mouth
$50 COZ. ;nr IMPROVING you Teche. $s0,-
00O; uf Bayou Terrebonne, SD for the
Alchafalava river and channei, $.)C.0; tor
the Calcasieu river, $4,000; for Bayou Car
ten, 500, }, including survey and esti-
mates; Tor Bayou LaFourche. slO,C-o.
Adjourned.