Mr. HOGAN. The duty on hem is, in my view, simply a tub thrown to the whale. We who raise hemp are not benefited by that duty to the extent of a row of pins. We in the West can raise hemp more cheally than it can be produced abroad. These uties are imposed simply to blind the farmers of the West, and induce them to believe that they get protection when in point of fact they get no protection. Gentlemen say that wool is an article of Universal consumption. Well I agree to that. I wear a coat of cloth manufactured in Missouriand made of Missouriwool. We do not want any protection upon the article, because we can grow and manufacture the article more cheaply than anybody else if you allow only fair competition. Now, sir, the land in Iowa and northern Illinois and Missouriis perfectly well adapted to the production of sheep. That land can be bought at prices ranging from $1 25 to 5 dollars per acre. Nature furnishes the food by whre the sheep are to be sustained. The prairie grass rows fine, and affords the sheep excellent food. They are not obliged to wear out their noses in hunting for a blade of grass. [Laughter] But, sir, Vermont, whose people raise sheep and produce wool, ought to have a stringent tariff to protect them against the wool of Iowa, which can be grown much more abun dantly and cheaply than the wool of Vermont, the land in Vermont costing more money, the production of the land, without heavy manur mg, not being adequate to the production of large crops, and the rigor of the climate requiring not only longer in door feeding, but better protection to the animal. Why, then, if you must add ten cents a pound to wool for the benefit of the wool grower of Iowa, you should give the wool grower of Vermont at least ten cents more to protect him against the cheaperand more easilycultivated land of Iowa and where will you stop your system of protection? But sir, you hear nothing about protecting the la oring man, the farmer, the mechanic the corman who must buy this heavily taxed woo or go without a coat. You tax the wool, you tax the railroad that carries the wool to market; you tax the commission merchant who sells the wool; you tax the manufacturer who makes up the wool; you tax the merchant who sells the woolen cloth; and when the manufactured article reaches the poor man in the distant West who has to buy a coat, my word for it he foots the bill for all this taxation. You put ten cents perpound into the ockct of the man who is engaged in the pronction of wool, and you drag that with the added%ages upon it from the pockets of a people already ovortnxed in every possible way. Is this fair? Is it just? How ong do you suppose the people will endure such burdens and emotions? He has to pay the tax, and the man who raises the sheepputs the money into his pocket. There is no thought of anybody protecting these men who are taxed. Ah, no! they are good enough to work, but do not put any money into (their pockets, or they will be elevated if on o. y So with lumber, of which the Gentfrom Michigan [Mr. Dmoos has spoken so eloquently. ook at that umber interest. He tells you they have suffered for a long while in every way. He tells on they cannot come into competition with the cheap labor and the cheap lo s of Canada. I sapiir. Chairman, these gentlemen have the market almost entirely, and yet they cannot stand it unless they can get additional protection. Eh! but what about the poor farmers in the West who open up your lands and who cannot make fences without this lumber? Not a word about them. The farmer of the West has to fence his farm and build his cabin, and all these incidental changes go to the pockets of the men in Michigan an elsewhere who make lumber from the stock. They all consent that logs shall come in as near free as possible from the Can adas. I have no objection to that. I have no objection to admit the stock to come in free that our men may make lumber; but I want the cheap lumber of Canada to come in to build upon our prairies and open up and develop the resources of the West. Hdo not want a monop oly thatis to be broughtto bearu on it, by which we have been taxing all the lumber that is used in Illinois and Missourito pay a dollar extra to some men in Michigan for cutting it. I do not care where the lumber comes from. All the lumber that enters into the uses of the lagriculturists and farmers of the West should come in free. We want millions and millions of it. It is advantageous to us to get cheap lumber because we want stock for our fences. The gentleman says that stumps e is 5 dollars in Michigan, and that in Canada stump age is worth only 50 cents athousand. Now, let us ct the Canada cheap logs, and let us allow themto use it if they will to we us cheap lumber for the development of die resources of the great Northwest. I agree in this bill generally. I suppose ever member of the committee did agree in it. did not suppose there would be any op EOSitiOn, as I looked upon this as a very equitable measure. We have to tax somethings and somethings have to come in free. I tell gentlemen in this House, and tell them in all candor, that while I am in some sense a tariff man I am not a prohibitory man.