Mr. SHERMAN. The rePresentation upon which my friendfrom Massachusetts acts comes to us from a gentleman who professes to be interested in it. I agree that he is an intelligent man; but he was heard patiently; he had the benefit of a full hearing. He refused to enter this conference, refused to take part in it, because he made a character of broadcloth that he said must have wool from South America, and it was useless for him to take part in it. But at the same time all the leading interests of Massachusetts and all the manufacturing States were ably rePresented. It was a meeting called by the manufacturers themselves. Any departure from the settlement then made creates complication and trouble. In regard to the changes made by the committee I will simply say that we took the bill in this respect as it finally passed the House, odescriptions and classifications. It is true the ComFinance reduced the duty 5 cents on woolen goods, but that is fully compensated by other reductions made in this bill. The duty on nearly all the drugs, chemicals, and dye stuffs used in the manufac. ture of woolen goods is thrown off. The manufacturers themselves compute the duty on the drugs under the old tariff at 2 and a half cents a pound on woolen goods. Then if 50 cents, as agreed upon by the House, was the proper rate, this would reduce it to 47 and a half cents. In addition to that, the senate have reduced the duty on flocks, which Mr. Slater, the gentleman referred to, tells me is a very important and necessary constituent element in the manufacture of broadcloth, from 12 cents to 3 cents.Mr. Slater himself tells me that a considerable quantity of this article, called flocks, clippings of wool, is introduced into the manufacture of broad cloth. I have no doubt that the reduction made in the Senate on drugs and chemicals and on flocks will very nearly compensate the 5 cents a pound taken off the speecific duty; at least very near it. The result is that we allowed 45 cents a pound to compensate the duty on wool, instead of 50 cents, and.?them from the duty on drugs and gave them some advantage in the flocks. The only reason I have for voting against this amendment is that I think this subject has been so fully considered by the persons interested, and they have finally agreed upon it in such a shape that any disturbance of the arrangement would only involve us, in complications which we cannot settle, not being experts. I would not vote for the proposition of the Senfrom Illinois; I would not vote to increase the duty on wool, because all the people I rePresent, both manufacturers and wool growers, seem to be entirely satisfied with this arrangement. We manufacture some woolen goods in Ohio, and I heard no complaint of the duties in bill. this I they will not be disturbed. To raise this duty to 50 cents a pound, as proposed by the Senfrom Massachusetts, on the coarser goods, would be to ignore the fact that we have thrown off for the benefit of the woolen manufacturers a very large amount of revenue now levied upon drugs, chemicals, and dye stuffs. That reduction is equal to 2 and a half cents a pound according to their own estimate; and if the estimate of the commissioner is reliable, that we consumed 117 million pounds in this country at 2 and a half cents a pound, it would amount to a very large sum thrown off for their benefit. I think they ought to be satisfied with that.