The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-04-15
He Stands Up for the Wool Growers Ms
Against the Manufnct urers.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

u
| Washington. April l4.-ln his debate
with Hoar to-day. Mantle said the wool
growers Of the United States are dis
satisfied with the proposed wool sched-
ule of the tariff bill. They claim that
the proposed rates do not afford neces-
sary protection and that the woolen
manufacturers of the country are get
ting undue protection as compared with
that given the wool growers. The wool
growers of the country, generally
speaking. are an isolated class. They
have not the machinery nor the means
of making theiI demands heard. at least
not to the extent the manufacturers
have. 5. d. North secretary of the Ma
tional Association of Wool Manufac-
turers. is acting as clerk of the repub-
lican members of the finance committee
In their present deliberations. There Is
no doubt that he Is the direct represen-
tative OF the wool manufacturers, and
there Is a decided difference Of opinion
between the wool growers and the wool
manufacturers of the United States as
to what is the proper tariff upon wool.
The last national republican platform
pledged itself To give ample protecttsd
to the wool growers Of this country.
In pursuance and In view OF that pledge
specifically made, there is no doubt that
the wool growers of the United states
gave their vote to the republican nOmi-
nee. At the same time there IL no doubt
that a great majority of the wool grow
ers are free silver men. That is true of
most all the Western republicans en-
gagged In In wool growing and they now
assert that that pledge is not fairly re-
deemed In the wool schedule proposed in
the Dingley bill.
I'm view of all that has transpred
here relating to the claims and protes-
tations that have been put forward by
the representatives of the New England
states In respect to protection for the
wool industry. ! ask that the Wool
Growers association memorial be given
very careful and earnest consideration
to the end that there may he no claim
after the Dingley hill has become
law. Such claim has been made by
the wool growers Of the country re-
spectng the Mckinley bill-that while
II proposed Ia give a duty which. on its
face. seemed to be a fair and reasonable
protective duty, as a matter of fact.
when II came to putting the law into
effect, did not give the duty which IL
is nominally proposed because Of nu-
merous loopholes for evasion and fraud
which were contained in that bill. These
same loopholes are contained in the
Dlneley MI 1hey are 10 ne found
largely in the two classes relating To
third-class wool, which II Is proposed To
admit under nearly the Identical terms
contained in the Mckinley law under an
ad valorcm duty. II is against that
proposition In particular that the wool
growers of the country enter their earn
est protest al this time,
THE interests of the wool growers
and of The woolen manufacturers ought
tn lie identical. But there esists clash
between these interests. | do not say
this in any spirit of III will. But all the
hearings. all the testimony. all the ar
guments that have been had upon this
subject. clearly demonstrated that there