Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1894-07-19
OF NO AVAIL.

some protection for wool on the final
passage of the tariff bill, but without
Senator Sherman offered an
amendment fixing "a duty on o OF
80 per cent ad valorem. but his amend
ment WAS defeated by n vote of 81 to
27. OF the Populists, Mr.. PETER voted
in the affirmative, and Mr.. Irby i'll the
negative, while Allen and Kyle failed
to vote, though they were present and
not paired. Mr.. PETER offered
an amendment for "A duty of . cents
per pound, but it a defeated by the
saime vote as before. Then he moved
to amend by admitting all manufac-
lures of wool free oil duty, but was
only able to secure the votes OF the
four Populists and Senator Hans
brough, of North Dakota.
Senator Power then introduced an
amendment providing for "A duty of
25 per cent ad valorem, and produced
statistics showing that the loss in
Montana alone. owing to the pros
poets OF free wool, amounted $4,000
900, or an average OF $4,000 for every
sheep owner in the state. Mr.. Power
closed his plea IN behalf OF his consult
uency as follows:
at does seem to me that Democratic
senator's in charge OF the bill and sem
ators from the southwest should con-
slider this interest. They are killing
the industries of the whole northwest,
and are protecting the manufacturing
interests OF the whole northeast. 1t
is certainly unnatural and unjust ;
but, as has been stated on this side OF
the chamber, there seems to be no
help for it. One or two votes from
the other side of the chamber would
save this great industry. The senator
from Ohio (Mr. Brice), who is inter
ested in the wool question, the senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Roachl. the
senator from California (Mr. White),
and the senators from New York have
it in their power to savethis industry.
Two votes from the other side of the
chamber would accomplish that pur-
pose.
alt has been stated here hat if Mon
tana had another senator. perhaps
something could be done for this great
industry, and the same has been said
oming, which, like Montana, are only
represented in part in this body. Ii
Montana had elected a senator this
year, he would have been a Democrat,
and he would naturally do as the
Democratic senator from Ohio, the
Democratic senator from California,
the Democratic senator from North
Dakota, and the Democratic senator
from Kansas havedone, AMI be bound
by the Democratic caucus to vote
against the interests OF his people.
at is well knownt that the trusts are
protected by this bill. and no doubt
will make "a great deal of money by
it's passage. Where there are great
gains, as in the sugar and lead trusts,
1 Nolilt III I CtNo 4 EulIti. ~
SlO4 DOC, 900 loss in sheep and wool,
as above indicated, shows that this
industry is the scapegoat and must
bear the burden which will tend to
equalize the gain in lead products, and
it the sugar and whisky trusts, faith
cred and fostered by the Democratic
party.
Il know it is useless to offer any
arguments, and that the people OF the
northwest will have to abide by the
will OF the democratic party, but
wish to state thefarmers will be heard
from, and this is the last time that
the two senators-one from Missouri
and one from Kansas-will have it in
their power to strange the interests
OF the western sheep-growers."
The vote on Senator Powers amend
ment vas 30 ayes to 80 noes. This
time Kyle voted in the negative, and
Allen and Irby refused to vote. This
was the nearest approach that was
the heares approach that was made
during the entire struggle toward Sc
curing any duty on wool. Had the
Populist senator's voted for the
amendment it isquite likely one Demo-
cratic vote could have been secured
and the amendment carried. Popu-
lists could vote for the sugar trust
but could give no aid to the industries
OF their constituency. Yet they have
the gall to place a ticket in nomina-
ton in Montana and ask sensible men
to votefor their candidate for congress.