Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1888-07-26

Dy . Majority sG Eaghseea the aeuse
Rejects . Motion - Scribe Weeo
Fron the Free Lest.

The free wool clause i'm the Mills bill
was reached last week and motion
to strike out was defeated by a ma
jority of 1s. A Washington special
contains the following in relation to
the debate and vote:
Had Mr.. Randall not been on bed
of illness he also would have voted
against free wool. Forty Democrats,
at least, are opposed to free wool.
How strong the influence of the party
was is shown by the fact that Thomp-
son of California, who represents one
of the largest wool growing districts
OF the United States, voted at the
behest of the free traders for free wool.
THAT costs him his seat in congress
beyond the shadow of a doubt" said
an old Californian in the gallery who
takes no part in politics. The vote
by which the free wool provision was
retained in the bill was 1O2 to 100.
Anderson of Iowa was the only Repub-
lican who voted with the Democrats.
When the debate opened, Mr.. +. $.
Taylor of Ohio, in opposing the wool
schedule, argued that the passage OF
the bill would not benefit the con-
sumer of wool.
at would not reduce the price of
wool in this country after it had been
in operation sufficiently long to de-
stroy the home industry. The passage
of this bill would absolutely destroy
the main wool raising industry Of the
country. 1t might not destroy that
of California or of Texas, but it would
absolutely destroy that of Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, West Virginia and the
Northwest. Wool had been placed on
the free list simply because the presi-
dent recommended it, and the presi-
dent knew no more why he recon-
mended it than Dickens fat boy knew
why he went to sleep SO much.
Mr.. Allen Of Massachusetts, had read
q letter from Mr.. Whitman, president
of the National Association of Wool
Manufacturers, stating that the wool
manufacturers are opposed to the
removal OF the duty on foreign wool.
The permanent success of the wool
manufacturing industry, says MIR.
Whitman, is dependent on the growth
in this country of their principal raw
material. Mr.. Kerr Of Iowa called
attention to the fact that the reduc-
ton OF the duty on wool in 1883 had
resulted in an increase OF revenue to
the extent of $11 900, 900 and he
therefore favored a return to the
tariff of 1867. Mr.. Anderson of Iowa
said that the self-constituted cham
pions OF American labor, by declaring
that the bill was an assault upon
American industry were presenting u
iasss xssss .sse ofs f. ses q, MIR. preck
inridge of Kentucky in favor OF the
free wool clause Mr.. wilkins OF Ohio
moved to strike wool from the free
list. On a division the vote stood
O3 to 122, and the announcement was
received with applause on the Demo-
cratic side. Mr.. Butterworth OF Ohio,
wished to effect an arrangement by
which an aye and nay vote might be
taken in the house, but Mr.. Mills
declined to comply. Tellers were then
ordered, and Mr.. wilkins motion was
defeated log to 12O. Mr.. Mills
offered an amendment striking out
the clause imposing duty of 80 per
cent ad valOrem on carpets and car
petings, and inserting u clause impOs-
ing u duty of six cents per square
yard on hemp and jute carpetings, OF
20 per cent. advalOrem on flOor mat
ting and floor mats, exclusively OF
vegetable substances, and of 40 per
cent. advalOrem on all other carpet $
and carpeting, druggets, bookings,
mats, rugs, screens, coverings, has
socks OF wool. flax. cotton. or tlartsnf
either, or other material. Agreed to.
Mr.. BOotham OF Ohio called up his
amendment restoring the wool tariff
OF 1868, and it was rejected, 50 to 93.
On motion of Mr.. Mills the date on
: which the free wool clause shall go into
effect was fixed as Oct. I, 1883, and
the date for the taking effect of the
wooden schedule was fixed as Jan. /
1889.