Mr. WILSON, of Penhsylvania. When a duty is asked for the protection of the lumber interests in the U.S., I am surprised at the spirited oposition exhibited against it on this floor. his opposition, in my judgment, arises mainly from the fact that the committee and many of the members of the House are not sufficiently posted upon the cost of lumber manufactured in the U.S. In my district about 300 million feet are manufactured annual], at an average cost of 17 dollars per 1,000 feet. The committee seem to have had evidence before them that pine lumber can be manufactured and sold in Canada at a cost of 6 to 12 dollars per 1,000 feet and this estimate corresponds with the information that I have received on the subject. This bill proposes to open our markets, namcg, htw York, Albany, Rochester, Syracuse: "Halo! Philadelphia, and all the rest lumber inur kets east and north of the usqushanna raven to free competition with the Canada lumber, saving a duty of one dollar per 1,000 feet on lumber worth less than 7 dollars, and 2 dollars or 1,000 feet upon lumber worth more than 7 dollars and less than 12 dollars. A statement of the case shows, perhaps, clearer than argument, that the duty proposed is entirely iuade mile for protection. Timber standing in my district is worth not less than 3 dollars per 1,000 feet. In Canada, iue timber standing is worth, according to the st information that I can get on the subject, only from 15 cents to 50 cents perou saud feet. This demonstrates that the duty proposed does not protect against the price of raw material. In my district it costs 9 dollars per 1,000 feet to convey the logs from the tree to the mill; this is labor. It requires but the statement to satisfy every member on this floor that you can procure as much labor in Canada for 6 dollars as you can command in Pennsylvania for 9 dollars. Here, again, is adifference of 3 dollars. Again, I am informed that you can get lumber sawed and iled in Canada for $2 50 er 1,000 feet. 1In my district it costs 4 dbl lars per 1,000 feet without regard to quality, and added to this is one dollar per 1,000 feet boomage. Compare your proposed protection in this bill with the cost in anada and here, and the fal lacy of this as protection must be apparent. When our lurrier is manufactured it is as far from market as is the Canada lumber. This bill is disastrous alike to the capitalist who owns the mills and timber and the man who performs the labor for food and clothing for his famil. The argument that lumber is a necessity an therefore on ht to be let in with a nominal duty is equally allacious. Protect your own manufactures, and you are certain of lumber, by competition, at the very lowest rices that it can be manufactured for in the U.S and any man who wants it for less is unworthy of being an American citizen. This whole bill is a sad commentary upon protection for American manufactures and American labor.