Mr. WILSON. I wish to say to the Senfrom Iowa that the idea of this tariff originated with the wool growers, was got up by them, Pressed by them; that the woolen manufacturers were, I will not say scared into this move ment, but I do know that many of them feared that unless they assented to the arrangement something worse would come. What I wanted to say the other day, and say here now, is this: I want gentlemen who live in this mighty West, whose power we all acknowledge, and to whom I suppose we must all bow, to acknowledge I quite as emphatically o their own bantlings, and not put them upon Massachusetts. We choose simply to stand for our own legitimate children. I said it was not a Massachusetts tariff. I did not say that because I wanted a Massachusetts tariff, for I do not want a tariff for Massachusetts, but for the whole country, as I suppose the Senfrom Illinois does; but when it is charged upon us that this is a NewEngland measure, I reply that it is not, and I go further: this tariff on 2/3rds of the manufactures of this country reduces the duties. Here is a reduction fro 40 to 35%., that is 5%.; you may add 5 more for the inevitable loss. It is from 8 to ten%, against us as compared with the existing tariff. So, too, the average duties on cotton goods are reduced. On 2/3rds of the woolen manufactures of NewEngland and on the aggregate of the cotton manufactures, in spite of all this increase that is made here, there is a positive reduction from the existing law. I think that is a sufficient answer; but f.wished to say that it did not come from us. I was brought up with this idea about a tariff for a country: that the raw materials which enter into the mechanic arts and into manufactures should be admitted into the country free or at low rates of duty; that in the assessment upon the country of the revenues necessary to carry on the Government there should be discrimination in favor of skilled labor, and that such a policy tended to increase the me chanic arts, increase manufactures, to draw men from agricultural pursuits into these, to diversif labor and lead to the consumption of the ucts of agriculture, and ultimately to brin down the price of the manufactured article an the product of the various mechanic arts and to develop the power and strength of the country. But, sir, we are departing from that. Senators speak as though the manufacturers of the country were oil. great fortunes. That is not the fact now. During the war, it is true, great fortunes were made; but why? We put 2 million and a half of men into the field, taking them from the productive industries of the country for that purpose. We spent from 2 to 3,000 million dollars in purchasing the products of agriculture and the mechanic arts and manufactures and importations into the country to support the Army. The Government became a great cus tomer. Now we have taken these men from the field: we have destroyed this customer. These men are returning to the various productive industries of the country; consequently the products of agriculture, manufacture, and commerce will be reduced in quantity and reduced in price. In other words, we must go from a state of war to a state of peace. I do not see how under such circumstances the productive industries of the country can be otherwise than somewhat dePressed, legislate as you may here. During the last few months a large number of woolen mills have been closed; millions of dollars have been lost in manufactures; and there is today stagnation in manufacturing and in the productions of the various mechanical arts throughout the country. This results from so many men returning to work, from the fact that the Government is no longer in the market as a purchaser, and also from the vast volume of our paper money. In this condition of affairs you propose to readjust the tariff. I have no idea that any adjustment made now will last or ought to last. We shall have a vast increase of the products of the country, and there will be a reduction in prices, and I hope that we are to have a reduction in the vast volume of our paper money and come back to a solid basis. But, sir, I acknowledge that I ought not to take up the time in s i.I. on these general and I ask pardon of the committee for having done so; but I think this amendment which I have proposed ought to be adopted. While you have increased the duty on woolens, so that they are from 70 to 80%, you have only given 35%. nominally on the manufactured article, and when you take out of that the amount necessary to pay the internalrevenue taxes, and be sides that the P. necessary to account for undervaluations and the cheatings through the customhouses, you will find on this class of goods a protection of not more than ten or 12%.; and some of the best men in the country say that it will not be over 5 or7%. I hope that on this question I shall have the vote of the Senfrom Illinois. I know that he is a fair minded man, disposed to do jus tice to the East and the West. He has got an enormous duty put upon wool, and here is a reduction upon woolen goods. By the Present tariff the duty is 24 cents per pound and 40%. advalorem; it is upon this class of goods by the House bill 50 cents per pound and 35%., a reduction of 5 in the% age and an increase of 26 cents per pound in the specific duty, to make up for the increase on wool.