Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1890-04-30
worsteds and woolens.

On motion of Dingley of Maine, the
House went into committee Of the whole
on the bill providing for classification of
worsted cloths as wooeps,
Dineley said the object of the bill was
to make clear a question that bad arisen in
regard to the classification of worsted goods
under the existing tariff and correct all
doubt and misapprehen sion. Justice re.
quired that worsted cloths be classified a.
woolen cloths. 1t required the same num-
ber of pounds of wool to make pound of
worsted cloth as 70 make a pound of wool
en- cloth. The cost Of production was sub
stsntially the same and the uses to which
the two cloths were put we're substantially
identical.
Breckenridge of Kentucky asked why, if
the Secretary decided that worsted cloths
should pay the same duty as woolen cloths
it was necessary to pass this bill. He said
the democrat. disagreed with the decision
of the Secretary of the Treasury.
Dngiey said before the ruling Of the sec
retaIy Of the treasury May 27, 1889, worsted
cloth, having the same amount Of work,
costing thA same, used for the same pur-
poses. as woolen cloth, was paying . duty
of "a cents a pound while tn. duty on
woolen cloth was 35 cents q pound. They
believed law that drew q distinction be-
tween wor.teds and woolen, q Law that
meant what ii said was an inequality VII ich
ought not to exist, and so As they reduced
woolen dom to proper rate Of duty they
wiped out the distinction between the two
articles The difference was the gentle
man wanted to elevate worsteds to woolen.
while he wanted TO bring down woolens to
worsted He said the pending bill was an
exact copy Of the Il iutrot uced last Con
gress by Breckenridge Of Arkansas, and
the gentlemen on the oher side had incor-
porated il in their tariff bill. There va.
no question as to the justice or propriety OF
this measure. 1t did rot involve the ques
tion between the two parties in regard tG
the tariff The question was: Is it not
just and proper there should be the same
compen sstory duty on worsted cloth as or
woolen cloths?
Carlisle of Kentucky. said it was well
known that b. " 1uld pre- fer to equalze the
rats Of duly by reduction. rather than by
an in rease. but i: would be conceded hi.
was impossible at the present time.
McMllin of Tennessee opposed the bill
as also did Mills of Texas.
Cummings of Nes York. thought the
promo .ed legislation an act of Injustice
rather than justice. The dacision the
Secretary of the Treasury. declared inoper
alive in the first suit tried uLder protes
ard sppesi from the classification he nsd
established The decision Vas bssed on II
error Of fact. Tie s cretary had sot an
dertsken to change a letter Of the statute
Importers believed ,h.y might continue il
the business until Congress saw ft Il
pass q general reviGonary tax. They
never dreamed there would be . specia
legislation against their interests. Sucl
legislation would cause them large loss fo
the bene fit of others. They had contract
based on the present laws and their good
we're already sold TO customers. The pss
sage of this bill would entail heavy losse
on these contractors. On behalf of tn
importers he protested against the pas.ss
of the bill.
The committee rose and Dinaley move
tat fur; her debate on the bill be limife,
to forty minuts. There we're three rel
salls bsfers tAs molten vas agrssd 70, n