{"newspaper_name": "The daily union.", "edition": "01", "page": "p3", "byline": ""}
{"character_count": 7927, "word_count": 1461, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9520000219345093], "ccnet_perplexity": [1399.4000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ments. Bank stock is taxed IN ONO for the sup


port Of the State government. III Is not, It ough


10 be. IL istaxed in the State OF New York, an
all the property here enumerated, owned by iDd


viduas, is taxed in that State for the support OF In


State government. This doctrine Of supportin


the federal government, by internal taxation, wa


repud lsted as early as 1906. ] will read one or tw


extracts from Mr.. Jeherson's inaugural message q
March 4, Of that yeu. He says


The suppression VI unnecessary Offices Of useless esai


lshments and expenses enabled US to discontinue


ternal taxes These covering land with officers an


opening our doors 10 their ntTusons had already begu


mat process Of domieing Vexston which once entered


scarcely to be restrained from reaching successye
| every article Of property and produce"


And again:


The remaining revenue the eonIapiiOH gt foreign


oS Is paid chiefly by those who afford TO add foreg


uIues to domestic comforts Being collected on ouI sea


board and frontiers only and incorporated with the


actions oi our mercantile citizens, II may he the prasur


and the pride Of American to ask what farmer what
states"


Phese Continued Mr.. O. were the sentiment


and doctrines Of the apostle Of libeny-the father o


the declaration Of independence-that far seeing
! statesman. And what he said then Of these Off


GERS ransacking the houses of our citizens in search


Of property that should be made the subject of taxa


ton, holds equally good now. One exception he


made. Ii was the case ofa foreign war with some
great commercial power of Europe.


There is Continued Mr. G.) but one other sub


ect to which | wish to advert One Ofthe great OBJ


ections TO the tariff Of 1912. land It is only one
amongst many,) one objection IN particular has been
the low duty on foreign wool:he fraud, the cheat
cry, in relation 10 cheap and coarse wool, practlsed
under that upon the farmers Of the country The
act imposed 5 per cent, ad valorem upon all woods
costing seven cents per pound and under, at the
port from whence they were exported On wool
costing seven cents per pound, duty Of 30 per
cent ad yslorem, and Of cents per pound was i'm
posed But II was pretended by the manufacturers
that this coarse wool was Smyrna wool species
that not raised and could not be raised in The
United States, and fl only for coarse blankets and
carpeting This was not believed al the time. An
effort was made even by the wings Of Vermont, TO
raise the duty on wool, and also by democrats. It
was then foretold precisely what the result Of this
low duty would be. And an amendment raising the
duty on wool was offered IN the Senate by Mr..
Wright, and there failed.


Now, what is the fact But before | proceed to
refer to statistics this head, probably ought to
advert to portion Of the speech made the other day
by my colleague Mr.. COLLMl in relation to this
matter. He says:


We are told by Mr. Nathan Appleton in his criticism
upon the report Of Mr. Secretary Walker that the
that duties not imposed upon wool by the act Of
lSI2 vas that our country dd not produce enough TO .
the manufacturers have never consumed
half Ofths wool grown In this country


do not exactly understand Continued Mr.. G.
what my colleague means by this


MIR. COLLIN. At least half OF the wool pro-
duced in the country is manufactured by hand.


Mr.. GORDON If my colleague means TO be un-
derstood as saying that this country does not con-
sumo half the wool it produces, he is mistaken.


have no doubt, and | shall endeavor to prove,
that the United States consume nearly double what
they produce, and yet that they are capable of
producing wool enough to supply the world
Let look at the tables, and see what the I'M
port of wool was last year. We imported over
iwenty-three millions Of pounds, and of that we
ex port believe, some sixty-four thousand pounds.
Now, the sixty. four thousand pounds which
we exported from thus vast amount Of our imports
was fine wool as will be by the tables, because
1t paid high duty 1t not, therefore, the coarse,
but the fine wool that exported. glance at
the tables will also show that we imported Of
Roollen cloths and yarn and woollen m tnDfactures
almost much as Of the raw material. And yet we
ex ported no domestic woolen cloths; at all events
none according to the tables. The amount, il any,
small that it is not noticed by the revenue Off
GERS or by the Secretary of the Treasury; It s not
in the report We then import into this country Of
wool and woollen manufactures nearly double the
wool which produce if the census of lSi0 is any
criterion by which TO Judge Of the product. The
clip of l640 from thirty TO thirty FIVE millions
Of pounds. do not know that we import as much
as we produce; but we import vast amount Of thus
foreign wool, fine and coarse-the fine in the form OF
cloths and manufactured articles whilst the wool is
Of q cheaper kind | mention these facts TO show
the objection to the act of l642 in this particular
one OF the great reasons why the act should be
changed.


What wool do we EXPORT We have begun TO
export little. In the year l843, the amount ex
ported was 65 bales from the port Of New York;
in 1914, LOG bales; in l845, 30ll bales. About
half the exports of lS45 were made by one house in
New York. | mention this to show that we are i'm
porting wool largely, and TO a great extent consum-
ing the foreign article. The tables do not show the
exports of domestic wool. What, in fact, we
have is derived from the newspapers. The amount
which we export is very small


Now, by the tariff of 1912 this wool which we
import paid duty of only 5 per cent. And ask
hat the injustice done to the wool-growers should
in some sort remedied by the act Of 1916, if such
IN act we are to have. The bill reported from the
Committee Of Ways and Means imposes a duty of
30 per cent. dd pdiOrsm on manufactures Of wool;
whilst it imposes duty of only 25 per cent. I'D
calorem, according to the foreign, not the home
Valuaon, on unmanufactured wool. Why this
difference between the manufactured and the ma
eriaE An honorabls member-a free trader too
informed me that the object TO protect the la
oorers and operatives Of the factories enable them
% compete with the pauper labor of Europe. Here
$ discrimination. Why not then discriminate in
avor OF the farmers VINO produce the wool; and, II
here is to be any difference give the per cent. the
other way' Is not the field laborer entitled to con-
,ideraion as well as the factory hands'


But this is all deceptive. The operative in the fac
ory gets no more benefit from this hve per cent. on
he manufactured article than he gets on the wool,
costing ceven cents per pound and under, laid by
he tariff Of lS42. The whole goes into the pocket
not of the operative, but of the manufactured Why
was not the same amount of duty imposed on all
wools' The object to give more protection to
The manufacturers His material comes in duty
'ree-or, at the most, with nominal duty. 1t all
goes to make up the sum Of his profits to the dsad
vantage Of the agricultural portion Of the community
What want is this want to see duty of 30 per Ct.
I'd uaiorsm, on the home valuation, imposed on all
wool. You impose 25 per cent ad palorem foreign
valuation and what does that amount to on pound
IF wool costing cents per pound in Brazill or
wherever else 1t may be produced believe it is
about u cent and hreequarters per pound. Here.
hen is wool costing the manufacturer in the port of
New York 8, cents per pound running up there to
20 and 25 cents per pound. Here is the difference
between the home and foreign valuation. The duty
hen is at best, nominal. We consume wool largely
will bear the highest rate of revenue duty and yet
he quantity Of the importation cannot be checked
You may put duty of 40 per cent ad raiorem, home
valuation, this foreign wool, ard it will then cost