Mr. LAWRENCE, of Ohio.Mr. Speaker, the tariff bill which recently passed this House but failed as yet to pass the Senate, provided that “on woolen rags, shoddy, mungo, waste, and flocks, the duty shall be 12 cents peround.” That bill was by no means perfect, at I do not propose to discuss its merits or its imperfections now. While I would reduce the duty on many of the 5,000 articles or more covered by it, yet in one other particular at least I would increase the duty; I refer to the duty on the importation of foreign “woolen rags, shoddy, mango, waste, and flocks.” The bill introduced by m colleague, Mr. BIKGHAM] and now before 10House, may wasno change in the existing tariff laws, except in relation to wool in its various forms. I will not now discuss the policy of protection further than to say, that when a new and struggling branch of industry is essential to our national independence in war and in eace, and is adapted to our capacities and condition, it may not be wise to permit its destruction by foreign competition. The subject of the duty on foreign wool has received much consideration by the States antithe people. The General Assembly of Ohio on the 9th of March, 1866, expressed the sense of the people of that State in these words:JtResolution relative to increasingthe duty on imported wools. Whereas sound policydictatesthat everyindependent fievernment shoulddevelopto the fullest extent all its Industrial resources, and not bedependent uJapeocnnat, nfyoortahneyi government.whetherforeign or ad industrial productions: and whereas undermanyforeign Governmentspopulations have become sodcnso us to reducetheprice oflubor to a minimum standard, and therefore are enabled to compete successfully in the U.S.market on aelsmpeocsitaalllly deelostchriinpgti;onansodf when ruefactured articles, and fucture sof clothing materials are never offered in American markets for a sum or at arate less than theinvoico‘pricoof foreignmanufacturesof the same quality an the custom dues or duty added; and whereaswool growirTirl is an industrial pursuit requiring a large oapi. great experience, skill, and care, and, as the Statutes at Lnrge now stand, the American wool growers are compelled to compete with countries where lands areof nnominal value only and the price of labor at a reducedminimum: Therefore, lfcsolvrtlbyfIlegeneralAssembly of the Slateof Ohio, That our Senators in the U.S. Congressare respectfully instructed, and our Representativesre quested, to secure the passageofsuch a law as shall secure to the American wool grower the same protection against foreign competition that is now insured to the manufacturer of either pure or mixed woolengoods. The Ohio Wool Growers’ Association on the 16th of January last adopted these resolves: “Resolved, That we approve the policy of terminating the action of the reciprocity treaty betweenthe U.S., sand the Canadas. That wool growers’inmost! are entitled to adegreeoflegislative protectionequalto that ac"cKoerndoe/dvteot manufacturing interests. That theinterestsof the countryrequire an extension of the culture of worstedwools.” I do not propose to discuss the subject of duties on wool, for that has been done by the Gentfrom Iowa, [Mr. GRINNELL, March 6, ] and by my colleagues, [Mr. Eckley, June 9, and Mr. DELAxo, August 10.] There is one topic connected with the interests of the whole country and not the wool growers merely, which has not been discussed, and to that I will address a few words. I maintain that the duty on the importation of foreign woolen rags, shoddy, mango, waste, and flocks” is not sufficientl high. By the existing law the dutyis onlyt ec cents perpound. I find these terms are not very generally under stood; and I may, therefore, attempt to present some definitions of them. On the 13th of December last, Mr. JOHN L. Hayes, of Massachusetts, in the convention of Wool growers and manufacturers at Syracuse, said: rsh"oIunld considering othkisthmeactotemr.ptchteitpiorondwuitchercol of wool or merine wool of a material which wasnot known in manufacturesuntil the present century. I to shoddy, or rather that variety ofshoddy know renfienr England by thenameof mango. The term 'shoddy, strictly speaking, is the name applied to fiber made fromsoft rags.fromflnnuclsand blanketswhichwere 1st usedin manufacture of cloth. The use of this material originated at Batley. in England, in 1818. Munrro is the fiber obtained from hard rageof fine broadcloth, such asclippings from the tuilors’shops. This wasnot introduc until later, and the manufacturersof Datle werequite incredulousof HSbe ing utilised. The orkshiro man who 1st conccived the idea of usingthefiberofliard rags, ohstinatelyreplied to the objection that the material could not be introduced, It mun go, ’(it mustgo.) It did go, and a new substance was introducedinto the arts and a nmeuwnwgoorsdixitnyt ofitvhee English language. Of shoddy and million p‘oundsars consumedin England. more than our whole clip of wool in 1860. It is estimated that 25,000 personsare ample ed in convertingshoddy into clot, and that the v no of the productis 5 or 6 million pounds sterling. The fact however.to which I attentionis, that shoddy comes in compwetiisthiotnowciathll fine or cloth wool only. It is not usedin the manufacture of worsted, and does not tako the place of combing wools." “ Flocks” are of 2 kinds, one bein the shearings produced in manufacturing new c 0th while the other is the product of old ra and cloth ground up. Bot varieties of fioc s‘ are mixed in or felted on cloth to gi ve it weight and fill up, but neither of the varieties can be woven, while shoddy can be, and is woven into goods either mixed or unmixed With wool. Waste is simply the flyings produced from the machinery in the manufacture of cloth. Now I insist upon an increase of duties on the importation of these articles for several reasons: 1. It is our policy to discourage their importntion. when handsomely finished, may deceive the great mass of purchasers and yet are noto riously inferior in value and wearing capacity. During the recent war the soldiers had frequent occasion to complain of imosition prac ticed upon them by clothing me e in part of. these imported rags. Let England, then, manufacture her own tags for her own people, and let us adopt such I 1363 a policy as will exclude foreign rags, either in I the form of rags, or when pic 'ed into fiber, or 3 in the form of fraudulent cloth. 2. This foreign trash when imported destroys the business of the wool grower here. It must be remembered that in the manufacture of cloth a pound of shoddy is more ro ductive than double its weight in wool. I 001. loses by washing and securing, shoddy loses nothing. EVery pound of shoddy imported drives out of the market more than 2 pounds of wool, erhaps 3 pounds. Yet foreign shoddy can e imported at a cost in NewYork of notover ten cents perpound. If it be wise to levy duties on foreign wool, it is wiser still to levy them on this foreign They produce woolen goods which, Imported Wool Mr. Lawrence. ‘; fraud. I submit to the House a statistical table showing the extent of the foreign trade in l this article. It should be remembered that we have American shodd ', and if it be desirable at all let us. patronize the home article. From woolens and whcloths imported and produced in this country, it would seem the supply of shoddy would be more than sufficient to answer every demand reciuired by the real interests of the)eople. have alrcacl remarked that I did not proposeto discuss in detail the policy of a taritf hathas been sufficiently done. But for the purpose ofillustrating this whole subject as affecting the producers, manufacturers, and consuurers of wool and woolen goods, I present in this connection statistical tables, prepared with great care, and which I trust will be of value in the consideration of this and kindred subjects. They are as follows: su'rsxssr or uxron rs or WOOL.mn u'ooasss. Product of U.S. Wool. tbs. Woolcn Goods. The exare of trifling amount. he woolen goodso American manufacture were scarcely eemedworthy of special enumeration until 1864.Foundedon the following proposition agreed it by the executive committee of wool growersan!) man facturcrs. 1866. 2. All manufactures composed wholly or in v:irt ofwool orworstedshall besubjectedto a duty which shall be equal to 25%.not: that is to say. 25%. after reimbursing the amountpaid on account of dutieson wool.dye stuffs, and other imported materials used in such manufactures and alsothe amount paid for the internalrevenue tax imposedvon manufactures, and upon the supplies and material used therefor. Total amountincrease.07.73cents.% increaseon foreign cost of wool. 36.66%. % age increaseon foreign manufacture.13.00%. Proportion of manufacturcr’sdutyon suit of clothes. Average cost$50, 3.26%