Norwich bulletin., 1911-08-04
MT. Hill on the Senate Amendment to the Wool Bill.
Special to The Bulletin)

Especial to The Bulletin)
 Washington, Aug. 3.--While the house was discussing the senate amendment to the wool schedule un- der the five minute rule, last night, MT. Hill said This is the first time that I have seen this amendment. I take it that it does not vary much from the amendment. offered by the Senator from Wisconsin originally, which was voted down in the senate. l understand it differs from that something like per cent It is another illustration of the manner in which the tariff bills are now being made, the bill being thrown by some member and the legislative body hit ting 1t if it can, making a home run If possible in one case, and going out at the bat in another case-WithouL judgment, without reason without in telligence and without Knowledge.
 Now, so far as the original Under wood wooden bill is concerned, I think the wooden industry of the United States would just as soon have one bill as the other, just exactly They are equally destructive. It is only a question of whether the industry shal. be killed by a bullet or stabbed to death. That is all there is to it. The Wilson bill gave free wool and 30 per cent. duty on woolen cloth such as is used for mems and women's dress goods. That is the largest item ol importation. The Underwood bill gives a duty of 20 per cent. on wool and 40 per cent on cloth, leaving a net duty of 27 Fer cent. on manufactured woolen fabrics. This is 23 per cent advaIorem less than the Wilson bill, which closed most of the factories in the United States. My understanding of the LaFollette bill which is now offered as an amendment, is that it is substantially the same in it's ultimate effect. l figured it up the other day in another place when 1t was being acted upon and found that, instead of 23 per cent. less than the Wilson bill, it was IT 3-4 per cent. less than the Wilson bill. so that you see either bill is absolutely destructive to the wooden industry
 T suppose one of those propositions is to be passed by congress. and l suppose the cotton bill, which is equal ly destructive to the cotton industry, will be passed also. l am very glad to see the members from the South taking a little of their own medicine, and l hope that all this talk which is going on now around the capitol to the effect that it is not the intention of the democratic party to force to an ultimate conclusion the cotton bill, may. for it's own credit, be more runners because I can conceive of no greater political advantage than could come to the republican party than to have the free list bill passed, but to have the cotton bill held up And if that is done. gentlemen, if that is done, you will not be here after the next election. Applause on the re- publican side)
 Tt must all go together, and. as I say, there being practically no differ ence between the LaFollette bill and the Underwood bill, so far as the woolen industry is concerned, l rise simply to call attention to the fact fn tbp wool en industry of the United States. I want to add my profound conviction that the revision of some of the rates of the cotton schedule, notWithstand- ing all the articles from undertaking magazines is the past two years, IS