The Portland daily press., 1888-07-13

to reduce the surplus and decrease taxation,
he gave IL his hearty support. He favored
placing wool upon the free list, eontending
that the grower would find a larger market
and better prices than he did now, because
OF the consequent increased manufacture Of
woolen goods. 1t was ridiculous to charge
that the pending bill would prove destructive
to business interests or that the President
would be in favor Of a bill which would de-
str0y the industries Of his country 10 the ad-
vantage Of England. The bill would have no
such effect, but would help all classes and
all industries.
Mr.. Mckinney of New Hampshire spoke
of the value Of sheep growing for the
purpose of improving poor land. There
were three profits from sheep: First, from
the wool; second, from the mutton; third,
from the fertiliZlng properties. In the face
OF this fact, the House was asked to place a
high protective tariff on wool, that the Ohio
farmer might have a better profit although
he had three profits already Placing wool
on the free list would secure cheaper clothes,
because 1t would enable the American man
utacturerS 10 compete on an equality with
the foreign manufacturers.
Messrs. Caswell of Wisconsin, ,sBoOthman
Of Ohio, and Brewer Of Michigan, protested
against placing wool on the free list. They
claimed that 1t would destroy the industry
Mr.. Dockery Of Missouri controyerted the
Argument that free wool would destroy the
wool-growing interest. During the high tar
in period, from 1867 to 1888, were varying de-
grees, the wool production depending
not upon the tariff rate, but upon
the great law of supply and demand.
Mr.. Allen of Michigan. said the country
could and would produce all the wool need
ed II 1t were given chance. The Democrats
protected all products Of the country south
of Mason's and Dixon's line and In the
breath charged the Republicans with sec
tionalism. II they believed they could strike
at Michigan through her great staples, salt,
lumbar and vvQOl with Immunity fhay
learn better at the coming election.
Mr. Dlngley Of Maine, said ", under free
wool, there would be reduction In the cost
Of material the farmers must suffer. IL free
wool made clothing cheaper 1t was because
less return for his wool. IL 1t did not reduce
the price Of wool 1t could not re-
duce the price OF clothing. Which
horn Of the dilemma would the
gentleman ON the other side take Even
time, 1t would not be long after free wool
had crushed out the wool producing industry
In the United States before foreign growers
would take advantage Of the situation to in
crease the price. Every. woolen manufac
turer in this district said to him that free
wool would In the end be curse to the
manufacturing interest Of the country
Since the NILS bill had been launched wool
had declined seven cents pound. IL the
discussion Of the bill had done this, what
former
J. ID. Taylor, Of Ohio. regarded the blll as
a conspiracy for ultimate free trade, and at
tackled its general features.
Pending fnrther debate the committee
arose and the House at o'clock took a recess
until s O'Clock.
On reassembling this evening the House
considered certain private pension bills TO
which objection had been made at various
Friday evening sessions, and the final vote
upon which had been postponed until to-
night. There were 13 such measures upon
the calendar, but opposition developed TO
the first one, granting pension to Jesse
Strickland. After call OF the House and
two Intellectual roll calls the House, without
accomplishing anything, adjourned.