Mr. MORRILL. Another point raised by the Gentfrom Illinois. What he stated in relation to the arrangement of this bill in our committee was true in so for as this, that we agreed not to report anything that was a disputable matter. And so far as this bill goes the 9th section does somewhat increase perprevious Quoting the genhaps the foreign cost of iron because it adds to the amount of the expense. even getting it from the wharf on board the vessel. It would increase to the same extent the cost of wool. But we gave no equivalent at all to manufacturers. It was found when it came from the Senate that there was one matter that it would interfere with very essentially, and that was coarse in grain 3 ply carpets, made up of very long, coarse wool, costing less than 12 cents a pound. An agent of the manufacturers came to the ComFinance of the Senate and represented the facts. I do not understand that there was anything unfair about it. The fact would be if it was made to cost above 12 cents perpound it would double the duties. I suppose it was for this reason that the Senate struck out this section. I think it would be much better for the wool grower that this section should remain in and a compromise should be made on that class of wool which we never have produced and which we probably never shall produce. If we should allow that particular class of wool to be exempt from the operation of the 9th section I suppose the Senate would be very willing to allow the section to remain. For one, representing a large class of wool growers as I do, I would be in favor of such a comromise as that rather than lose the section. but at the same time. as the Senate has postponed the general tariff bill, I am not very tenacious about it. I suppose very likely this section willhave to be given up. The whole subject of the tariff would not be opened by the committee of conference. They cannot consider any subjects but such as are in the bill, and if they should bring back anything else it would be against all parliament ary law.