Mr. KASSON. Mr. Speaker, I observe this morning in the House some signs which the friends of this bill evidently regard as signs of demoralization of those gentlemen who yesterday seemed confident of success in defeating the principal features of this bill. I trust that when we come to a vote upon several of the great questions involved in the bill it will be found not only that the west is neither demor alized on the one hand nor correctly repre' sented in its interests on the other b the distinguished Gentfrom Ohio, [Mr. ELANO] an also thatNewEngland is not converted by the Gentfrom Ohio to entertain the theory that he has put forward this mornin. So far as I can remember the su stance of the remarks of the Gentfrom Ohio, they rested mainly upon the necessity of protecting the wool growing interest of this country. To that subject I desire the attention of the House for a few moments. The wool that is imported from foreign countries at the lower rates of which they speak, now comes mainly from Aus tralia and the orts of Brazil. It is produced chiefly there because land is cheap, grass is abundant, the winters are mild, and the sheep are healthy. The attempts of the woolgrowin interest in this country east of the Mississippi valley to secure prosperity to itself and a rich return for the cu ture of wool will prove vain unless you can upset the arran ements of divine Providence in this country. he far'West pos' sesses all the conditions of cheap production. It is hardly 5 years since sheep were introduced in any quantity into the State of Iowa. We have increased the number from 100s of 1,000s to about t womillions in that State. No protection which you of the East can get will enable you to permanently devote your selves to this interest, and you must turn your attention to some other investment. Why, sir, when you get shee on the western lains, especially in the bu 9.10range and on teAr kansas and neighborin streams, where the grass is sweet and nutritious and where ani mals ran e the entire winter, you will find sheep produced there so easily and so cheaply that you cannot compete with the vast future production of wool on the plains of the West. In the East, where your land is worth 20 dollars and 30 dollars peracre, where for nearly 6 months in the year you feed your shoe upon the grass that has been cut and drie at great expense, where hay is costly; I say that where these things exist on cannot compete with the production of the est, where the winters are short, and where we need but a small amount of forage for the winter. The attempt is vain to do it. Therefore I say it is necessary to adjust tariffs upon other principles than by the attempt to confer bounties upon a particular branch of industry to secure the development of that branch in a particular part of the country. Whatever gentlemen may say to the contrary, I say that today the raising of wool in Iowa is one of the most lucrative branches of business to which farmers can direct their attention, and it will be still more lucrative as you go further West, where still cheaper elements of reduction will be found. Now, let me say that my objection to this tariff bill consists mainly in this, that it rests upon no fixed principle in itself, and upon no fixed policy that hangs upon acorrect principle of adjustment. Just so certain as you yiel to this interest and that interest and the other interest the particular protection which it demands, just so certain 0 you run from the one branch to another in order to equalize what you have given to one by giving more to am other, to compensate for whatever injury may possibl be done to it.