Mr. SHERMAN. I do not care who makes the computation, nor do I think the wool growers did make it. The wool growers never pretended, and no one I have ever seen pretended that the clip of this country was over 100 million pounds. It is generally estimated at an average of 84 or 80: 5 millions, while the highest quantity of wool ever imported into this county was but 84 millions, and the average but 60 millions. 2 years ago it was only 40, millions, and last year 84 million pounds were imported, the highest importation ever made. Let us examine the reasoning upon which the commissioner bases his estimate. He says: “The number of setsof woolenmachinery or series of cards employed in the U.S., reported to the Wool Manufacturers’ Association in October, 1865, was 4100, consuming 2, 252, 545 pounds of scouredwool and substitutesfor wool per week; but thesereturns, it ably indicate more than thwreaessfotautrethds, did not prob to 4 5ths of the setsthen in actual operation.” Upon a statement that in a certain week in October the amount of consumption in the woolen factories, then driven to their extreme, was so much, and then multiplying that by 52 we have the basis of the computation. That is a very insufficient mode of reasoning, I have no doubt that the duty on wool will add somewhat to the cost of the woolens consumed by the people of the U.S. To what extent it is difficult to say, because it is very difficult always to estimate how much of the duty will be paid by the importing merchant, how much by the foreigner who raises the wool, how much of it will be added to the consumer, and how much of it will be cheapened by the increased manufacture or by the increased competition in domestic products. These are unknown quantities about which mon may theorize as much as they choose. I take it as a general principle, and admit beforehand that every duty adds to the cost to the consumer. There is another statement here made in regard to this same matter in which I think the commissioner must have fallen into an error, and I intended to call his attention to it this morning. He endeavors to show that the wool interest is a prosperous one; that the growth of wool is a prosperous and profitable branch of industry in this country, and he quotes from a gentleman who is very highly esteemed by the men engaged in this business, Mr. Randall, who wrote a very good book called the “Practical Shepherd.” He quotes from Mr. Randall, who says: “How very striking is the fact that, during 38.?. j. 1, 1862, ] and with all the disturbing causes to the wool market, there has not been a single year in which the average price (42.8) for the wool marked medium, ' would not now pay the actual costof producing our heavy fleecedAmer + o ican merine wools.” “Of the production of how many other of our great staples of industry can as much be said?” In this Mr. Randall says that the average price they have received for their wool according to statements up to a certain time was 4. 2 and 8 10ths cents per pound. Then by a marginal note which comes in after the word “now” there is a reference in the report to September, 1866. anyone who would read this report would suppose that Mr. Randall, president of the Wool Growers' Association, in September, 1866, said that now the average price, 42 and 8 10ths cents per ound is a full remuneration for wool growing.