Mr. YATES. I had intended this morning to offer an amendment by way of showing my position on this bill generally, and it was in relation to the duty on wool. As I now have the opportunity upon the amendment which has been offered by the Senfrom Massachusetts to Present my views, I am not so particular about the amendment which I in tended to propose. I now discover from the amendment which the Senator has moved some clue to the remarks which he made yesterday. If this amendment was offered by him with a view of perfecting the bill and then sup: porting it, I could entertain a more favorable imPression in regard to it; but I imagine that even if we should adopt the amendment of the Senfrom Massachusetts he would be unwilling to support this bill. It seems to me that he has a sort of prejudice against what we call wool. He said yesterday that this was not a Massachusetts bill. Sir, I say it is not a Massachusetts bill. Were it a Massachusetts bill I certainly should not support it. I support it because it is a U.S. bill, including Massachusetts as well as Illinois, and every other state in the Union. He said it was not a Massachusetts bill because it not only protected textile fabrics, such as are made by the looms and factories of Massachusetts, but also embraced coal and iron and steel and wool. Sir, we have had tariffs for Massachusetts long enough; in my humble estimation it is time that we had a tariff for Illinois, a tariff for the U.S., as well as for Massachusetts. We now find the 2 honorable Senators from Massachusetts, (whom I have always regarded as high protective tariff men, from whom I may say I have learned the lessons that have led me to adopt the views I entertain upon the subject of protection,) denounci this bill because it is not a Massachusetts bi One of the honorable Senators is for cheap coal; the other honorable Senator is for cheap wool. The one honorable Senator does not want protection upon coal, because the people of Massachusetts would then have to pay a duty upon coal, and it would diminish the prof. its of the manufacturer to that extent. The other honorable Senator does not want any duty on coal, on iron, on steel, or on wool, because that will diminish the profits of the manufacturer to that extent. Sir, if so, I should like to know what becomes of the protective theory? If we have a duty upon wool, and we thereby increase to a large extent the amount of our flocks and herds in the West, thus adding to the general wealth and prosperity, I should like to know what becomes of the old tariff doctrine which we have taught heretofore? Does that duty increase the price of the article to the consumer? Does not the fact that we can have more sheep and more cattle, that our farmers can go more extensively into grazing and can extend the supply, enable them in time to sell cheaper? Is not that as sound as the old tariff doctrine, that we will protect our manufacturing establishments in order to enable the article to be finally spread through the country cheaper to the consumer? Mr. President, I ask why we shall not protect our coal if we protect our manufacturing establishments; did I ask why we shall not protect our wool, the sheep upon our western orests raised by the farmer there. I have occupied all positions, I believe, in my past life upon this tariff question. I think in my days I was for a prohibitory tariff; then I was for a tariff for protection upon the principle of developing the resources of the country and encouraging the industrial interests of the country as against foreign.cometition, upon the principle of providin home market, upon i. principle of giving employment to millions of hands in America in stead of in Europe. I had even the dream of Mr. Clay, of Mr. Webster, and of Mr. collamer, and those men who believed that by a protective tariff we might make this the might iest nation of the earth, dependent upon no nation for its supplies in peace or in war. I am loath to give up that principle yet. I cannot see now why we may not, with a country so rich in ores, so abundant in its capacities of every kind, dig our own iron out of the earth, and give employment to our own hands and work up that iron, run our own mills, develop our resources. And yet I must confess that while I still maintain the theory of protection, so difficult and so sinuous is legislation upon the subject as even to make me fear the attempt to apply it. Although the theory is right, the application is so difficult; it is so dif ficult to act so as to produce fairness and impartiality between different sections and interests, as almost to shake my faith in the theory itself. And, sir, when I can see Massachusetts, where the protective system was rocked in its cradle of infancy, object now to protection to wool, or, because protection is given to wool, seek to increase unduly the protection given to manufacturers, I confess that my faith E. Ine to Some extent. I will say to the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts that the best argument which has been introduced in favor of this bill is what he considers its weakest point, and that is that it protects not only the fabrics that are manufactured in the factories and by the looms of NewEngland, but because it embraces coal, iron, steel, and wool; it embraces every interest of the country; it is as wide and comprehensive in its scope as the country itself. The honorable Senfrom Indiana [Mr. HENDR1cks] said the other day, “When this measure comes before the people it will fail; ” and if we refer to the history of our tariffs we must remember that not one as yet has ever met with the approbation and sanction of the American o: Even the tariff of 1828 which cost the highest efforts and energies Henry Clay, had to go down and be modified by. scale of duties in 1833. But, sir, I tell the Senfrom Massachusetts now that wool is the strength of this tariff. We have a West now. We have there, for instance, over 40 millions of sheep grazing upon those broad prairies and in those beautiful valleys; and they rePresent 2 million voters men who make Presidents and who can make tariffs. Population is crowding now around our lakes and into our broad valleys, upon our beautiful prairies. We have there, as you have in Pennsylvania and in other States, inexhaustible mines of wealth, beds of iron and lead and zinc and copper, and beyond, still further west, sil ver and gold. We.in the State of Illinois, according to a geological survey and according to experiments actually made, coal enough to make the hearthfires of this country blaze for 1000centuries; and then we have a rich, fertile, and productive soil of from ten inches to 8 feet in depth. Then, sir, as the pay cific railroad stretches out to the far West, emi gration is nestling upon its track, villages and cities are springing up, the power and the wealth of the continent are going there, and the time will come when the distinguished Senfrom Massachusetts, [Mr. SUMNER, I trust, may from the summit of the Rocky mountains look over othe land of gold and look back East upon the land which, he has passed, with our herdsmen and flocks upon 1000hills, and then, if he stands by the protective principle today, he may say: “How beautiful are thy tents, oh Israel!” Why, sir, should we not have cheap wool raised in our own country?. There is the habitation of the sheep; there are the rich grasses and the sweet grasses, there between the northern boundary of Minnesota and Texas and west of Missouri; there are the hot latitudes, the short winters, the long summers; there sheep are healthy; and while in the U.S. there is but one sheep to 4 acres of ground, in Vermont, for instance, or one to 4 in hio, I believe,) we have not one to 40 acres in those northwestern States. The number of sheep can be as many to the acre there as any where else; and that will be the result of the adoption of a proper system. We hear cries of ruin. The honorable senator [Mr. WILson] says these looms will stop and these spindles will stop unless this 5 cents is added to the duty on woolen goods. Sir, I tremble not for any such consequences. I do not expect that there will be a solitary decrease or diminution in the wants, the enjoyments, or the luxuries of NewEngland. I Presume Nahant will have its wonted joys and refreshments whether this 5 cents is added according to this proposition or not. But, sir, there is an interest which is to be affected unless we protect it, and that is the wool interest. That is comparatively new. I do not mean to say that the business of the shepherd is new; but the wool interest as a separate interest has grown up during the last 2 years in the State of Illinois, and I Presume in the State of Iowa within the last 4 or 5 years, so that we have 5 sheep where we had one 2 years ago. It has become an immense interest; it has been stimulated by the demands of the war. Why, sir, look at one fact, to see how the war has stimulated this interest. In 1859 there were but 230,000 pounds of wool raised in the U.S. In the year 1865 there were 87 million pounds; showing how the demands of the war stimulated this interest. I hope I shall be excused for saying here, however, not that this interest is going to be ruined, unless there be a little increase added to the duty upon wool, but that whether this bill passes or not at least half of our wool growers must be totally ruined, from the fact that during the war, under the stimulus of the demands which were then made, they increased largely their farms and their flocks; and now, the war ceased and the demand for wool having sed to a great extent, these farms and flocks become of comparatively small value. Mr. President, we are in this condition now. Whatever may be our views upon the subject of the tariff, whether we are for a tariff for protection or for a tariff for revenue with incidental protection, we must have a tariff of some kind. We not only have to raise by internal taxation what is necessary to support the government in its ordinary expenses, but we have to provide for the payment of the interest on our national debt; and when we attempt by a tariff to raise a revenue for that purpose let it ot be a Massachusetts tariff, or an Illinois tariff, but a tariff which shall embrace every interest in this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from Maine to the Gulf. The honorable Senfrom Indiana [Mr. HEN DR1cks] predicted that we should go under with this tariff, and other gentlemen who are opposed to it predict that we shall go under; but, sir, in the Northwest the men who will go under upon this tariff will go under because they have not supported it; it is the only tariff which ever yet has been adopted by the American Congress which has given sufficient consideration to the agricultural interest. That is the truth about it the only one, indeed, which has given any consideration whatever to the agricultural interest. Now, sir, is it not unfair for Massachusetts, which has grown wealthy and prosperous be neath a tariff policy for the last 50 years whose merchants have been made princes and whose villages have been made cities, and where prosperity abounds in every direction, owing to your tariff policy, to object to protection being now given to interests in the West which demand it? Why should not these interests also have consideration before the American Congress 2Isay to the honorable Senfrom Indiana that we will meet him upon the question whether this tariff is popular or unpopular. That Senator has not proph esied rightly in times past for the last 20 years; and we shall see whether he is a better prophet now than he has been heretofore.Mr. President, the amendment which I shall offer, and which I shall take time to explain now, as it bears upon this question, is will this: move to strike out all of the 3rd section after the words “hereinafter provided “ in line 6, page 12, and in lieu of the various duties there proposed to insert “ shall be 12 cents per pound, and, in addition thereto, ten%. advalorem, ” as the duty on all sorts of wool. I shall make this proposition in the 1st place to simplify the E. Here are 6 long pages telling what wool is, the different kinds of wool, 1st class wool, 2nd class wool, and 3rd class wool, fixin the duty upon these various classes of woo according to price, and then providing that each customhouse officer shall have a sample of these different kinds of wool. When wool is rePresented as worth 12 cents he has a sample of that kind, and so of all the other kinds, and he is to decide upon these samples whether the wool is to be taxed 3 cents or ten cents or 12 cents. As specific duty is about 12 cents a pound on the average, perhaps a little over, I propose that we say that upon all unmanufactured wool the duty shall be 12 cents per pound and ten%. advalorem. I am not going toment insist upon this amend. if the committee have found insurmountable difficulties in fixing one common rate and have therefore resorted to these 5 or 6 pages to classify these wools, but I should like such an amendment adopted for this reason: immense frauds have been practiced upon the wool producer in the customhouse dept. Where there are different kinds of wool and the duties upon that wool are different, there is a chance for the grossest frauds, and the grossest frauds have been committed. We know by actual experience and by statistical tables that for the 6 months ending 1st of december, 1865, of the wools which were imported into the U.S., amounting to many million pounds, nearly all were brought in under the low duties of 3 and 6 cents, and but 4 50 pounds were brought in during those 6 months of the higher class wools (according to the customhouse returns) such as compete with our common Spanish Merine wool. "We find this to be the fact, and I submit it to you now, Mr. President, that if we want fairness we should say that the duty shall be so much on every kind of unmanufactured wool. Then there can be no excuse; the customhouse officer cannot say, “I was deceived as to whether this was 1st class wool or 2nd class wool or the 3rd class wool.” The importers have means and ways of making 1st class wool appear 2nd class and the 2nd class appear 3rd class by handling them in dirt and disguising them. Even if a man is honest in the customhouse he may be deceived. How many Senators on this floor could tell the difference between what we call combing wool and carding wool? Not 6 of them could tell the difference. So with customhouse officers, supposing them to be honest; but they are not always honest as we know; they are too often appointed for political considerations, and they are not, I o fear, always honest. That the im may know, that the wool grower may know, that the country may know that these frauds are not going on, why shall we not in a simple clause, 6 lines in length, declare that upon all kinds of unmanufactured wool the duty shall be 12 cents per pound and ten%. advalorem 3 The answer to that perhaps will be that there is a certain class of wool, very chea wool, of which our shoddy is made, wort about 16 cents a pound, upon which the duty is only 3 cents, and that we cannot raise it in this country. I will admit, for the sake of the argument, that we could not raise one pound of that wool in this country, and yet the whole amount of that inferior article which comes to this country will not begin to compensate for the frauds in the Treasury.growing out of the impossibility of distinguishing between these different classes of wool. But, sir, we are informed by our agriculturists that this wool can be raised in America, can be raised in our milder latitudes down in the region of Texas if it had the protection which is awarded to other interests in this country. If eastern gentlemen are interested in chea coal, if they are interested in cheap wool an cheap iron, surely we are interested in cheap clothing; and now that by convention between yourselves and the wool growers you have agreed that they shall have in the average ten cents per pound and cents advalorem, you come in and propose to increase the duty on cloths. “I do not propose to touch the wool interest, not at all, ” says the honorable Senfrom Massachusetts. No man, perhaps, is more friendly to the West than he j I am sure that there is no man who stands higher in the West than he does; but he says, “If we give you that protection we must have a little more protection upon the manufactured article. In other words, if you take 12 cents per pound upon your wool, we must take 5 cents of that out of you in the consumption of the manufactured article.”