Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-07-13


the Whole (Mr. Springer In the chstr) on the
| tariff bill, fne agreement being that no vote
should be taken on The pending wool sche'
| dule to-day.
Mr.. v. b. Taylor SAID that the debate
would be greatly shortened II The majority
| should agree 10 allow an yea and nay vote 70
! be taken in the House on the wool schedule,
bu. Dir. Mills discIaimed any authority 10
enter into such an arrangement.
Mr.. Pugslesy, OF Ohio, opposed TIE scoe-
duie a. II appears 10 the bill. confcnding
that II would destroy the shcep-grow'ng in-
dustry, and incidentally make unsva'able
much OF the poor land OF the country. The
| duty on wool instead OF being reduced
should. be increased, and " th's were aon one
there would be in the country l00.OOO.0o0
| sheep instead of 40,000.000 and 100000
growers instead Of l,U00,000.
Mr.. O'Donnel, OF Michigan, did not cha
rsclerize The present bill as sectional. lie
felt that Il knew no North, no East. no
/ West: Il was OH Soutb. The attempt
10 mace wool on the free list would iniure
one fifteenth OF the population Of the country
| ia,erested In wool growing. lie favored
putting sugar and rice on the free list, cut
! ting down the revenue $50, 100000 from these
/ two articles OF necessity; then he would re-
| duce the letter-postagc 10 / cent. and take
! OIL the exorbitant charges to farmers Ior
| hostage on seeds, plants, end bulbs. This
would save over S26,oo0.05o more, making
ss5, 000. 600 reduction on these three articles.
| He thought this method should be tried TO
stop the growing surplus, end TINS DEBATE,
and give the country rest.
Mr. Mckinney, OF New Hampshire. spoke
/ OF the value Of sheep growing for the pur-
| pose OF improving poor land. There were
| three profits from shcep-trst from their
wool, second from their mutton, and third
from their iertilizing properties. In The
| face OF this fact the House was asked to
place A high protective tariff on wool in
order that the Ohio farmer might have better
profit, although he had three profits from
sheep already. Would there be less fer
| tirizing qualities in sheep under Tree
trade than under protection IL was his
impression that the sheep would know
nothing about II, and would go on ferti-
/ lizinc ground rs before. He did not think
| that the placing Of wool on the free list
would decrease the price OF wool In this
| country, but il would secure cheaper clothes,
/ because il would enable American manu-
! facturers 10 compete on an equality Win
! foreign manufacturers.
Mr.. Caswel, OF Wisconsin. protested
against free wool as having the effect OF de-
stroying the sbeep-raising industry In DIS
state. That industry depended on protee-
| ton and encouragement Pass this Dill,
| and in less than ten years there would not
| he twenty million sheep left In the country.
Mr.. Booibman. Of ohio, said that the
placing OF wool on the free list struck
deadly blow at one OF the industries OF his
district, and for this, II for no other reason,
he was opposed TO the Mills bill. He favored
a return TO the wool schedule OF 1867.
Mr.. Dockery, OF Missouri, asserted that
there was no political party In the country
which was hostile TO American Interests,
and he questioned the sincerity OF the gen.
| tlemen on the other side when they charged
the Democratic party with desiring to inau-
eurate English systems in this republic
When the interests OF this country were ar
rayed against those Of foreign nations the
| American people would be found standing
as one man 10 support OF their own land.
| He controyerted the argument that free
wool would destroy the wool-growlng inte-
rests. During the hIgh.tarf periOdfrom 1867
/ TO 1889 there were varying degrees of wool
production, depending not on the tarin rate
| but upon the great law OF supply and de-
| mand lie said he would have more respect
/ for the prophesies OF the other side II they
! had not turned out so badly IN times past
/ rs for instance, when they had prophesied
| ruin and disaster TO The country and the re-
! establishment Of slavery as result OF Demo-
| cratic success i'm the last presidential cleo
! ton. II the old Mosaic law was in force to.
| day they would be stoned TO death as false
/ prophets. democratic applausc.] AS to
| this talk about legislation hostile To labor, II
would be as fair to expect q mother to de-
seri her babe as to expect the Democratic
party to turn its back upon the laboring
| man, who had always constituted its bone
and sinew.
Mr.. Allen, OF Michigan, said that this
| country could and would produce all the
wool il needed il it were given chance.
/ The Democrats had protected all OF the pro-
| ducts OF the country south OF Mason's q
| DiXOn's line and in the same breath charged
the Republicans with sectiOnalism. III they
believed they could strike at Michigan
through her great staples-salt, lumber, aud
wool-with impunity they woGldlearn better
at tue coming election.
MIR. Lauham, Of Texas, said that the bill
had received the endorsement and sanction
OF the Democratic party, and had become es-
sentiay party measure. He bad some
doubt as to the propriety OF the wool sche-
dule, but he had resolved that the doubt IN
favor OF the duty which he owed 10 the par
~ TO which he belonged and in Difference TO
its councils he would yield his own feelings
and decline TO break its ranks.
Mr., Brewer. OF Michigan, said that the
flock-raisers OF the country were receiving
from five to eight cents less per pound for
their wool than they would be receiving had
not the Mills bill been pending.
Mr.. Diugley, OF Maine, said that IL under
free wool there would be a reduction in the
cost OF material the fGmer must suffer by 1t.
II free wool made clothing cheaper 1t was
because 1t made wool cheaper and gave the
farmer less return for his wool. II did moi
reduce the price Of wool 1t could not reduce
the price OF clothing. Which horn OF the
dilemma would the gentlemen on the other
side take? Even should the price OF
wool be reduced for time II
would not be long after free
wool had crushed out the woo-producine
industry In the United States before foreign
growers would take advantage Of the situa.
ton and increase the price. Every wooilen
manufacturer In his district had said TO hin
that free wool would in the end be a curse 10
the manufacturing interest OF the country
Since the Mills bill had been launched in The
press wool had declined seven cents pound
IL the discussion Of the bill had done this
what would tue bill itself do 10 the injury OF
farmersS
Mr.. j. ID. Taylor, of QUO, regarded the
bill as q conspiracy for ultimate free trade
and be attacked its general features, and
more especially that feature placing wool on
the free list. In the course OF his remark:
he suggested that The Committee Oil Ways
and Means knew that the bill could not be
passed. II there was any hopeful member
of that committee he ,Taylor) would tel
him that the bill would never become law,
Did the gentleman from Kentucky (Breckin'
ridee) ihink it would!
Mr.. Breckenridge replied that be was un'
der the impression that the bill would pass
the House aud il it did that would be pre-
sumptiye evidence that 1t ought to pass the
Senate. [Laughter.1
Mr.. Taylor; Did you think it would pass
the senator
MIR. Bfeckinridge: l can hardly say
did, because it is Republican Senate.
only hoped 1t would see the error OF its ways
aud would do this good thing TO the disap
poinment OF both sides OF the House.
tLaughter.l
Mr.. Kennedy, OF Ohio, directed his speech
10 the consideration Of the methods followed
by the Democrats party In carrying elections