{"character_count": 5507, "word_count": 1019, "ccnet_language_score": [0.967199981212616], "ccnet_perplexity": [1716.199951171875], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
:iwn to thirty peT cent. merely, (aEG thls NC
G,y's bill GUS down TO twenty-five per cent.


.i.er one year, provided the duty on the cheap,
ouarse Wool which costs less .han seven cents


ser pound b, increased. (aicKay's bill raised
;hs from G-c 10 fifteen per cent? confess l
.rnol sec this at ali as you do. Let Us con-
sdc.:


Here is an American farmer engaged in pro-
ducing Wool, which he certainly cannot afford
20 sell for less than twenty-five and SO on up to


fly cents per pound. lie is now protected by q
daty on all Foreign Wool costing ovc! seven


ants pound Of Thirty per cent and three cents


.pecifc-toge;he, amounting TO froE thiriy-iiye


t. fifty per cent. The coarse Wool OF South


America, Asia and Barbary, costing uader seven
cents pound is supposed not TO come IN conPe-
ttion with orIs, ard 50 is charged but five per
cant. Your party propose to put tac duty On
his poor stuff up to fifteen per cent. and cut
town the duty on all the better sorts (after one
Year. to twenty-five per cent. By this change
olr Farmers would be protected by an increase
Of duty on such Wool as they DO not produce
varying from oae-haJ TO three fomths OF & cent
pound, but this would be rather ovc.baanced
oy The reduction of the duty on such Wool as
thev do grow, TO the extent of four cents pound.
cannot say how great an inducemen: they
you'd esteem this change TO groS wool worth less
than seven cents pound, but it certainly would
oe poor encouragement to those engaged in pro-
ducug all the better qualities. Whethe. it
would raise the price or reduce it could scarcely
think, be question.


How gou propose TO obtain more Revenue from
,;Eool, and the same time give as much Protcc
.ion as at present, you probably underestimate
10 not For, certainly. if you mean to DO the
Farmers any good by your higher duty on the
sovcn-ccnt Wool, you mean to do it by greatly
diminishing the amount imported-which se,ms
10 me in plain contradiction to the principles you
had previously laid down.


YOU say that you passed in Vermont village
in which two factories were making satinets for
his matkct-one from American Wool (Which
mus, have cost at least 80 cents pound,) and
,lic other from Smyrna WOOL paying three mills
duty, ard which must Of course have cost six
cents pound-say seven cents IN New ok,
duty paid. Now, can any man believe that one
nil! would go on working up American Wool at
,hitly odd cents pound, when it might buy
material answering the same purpose ior Sepen
cents, or less than one fourth as much Could
any company afford 10 do this T.? No, Sif no
more than | could pay four times its market
value for the paper print on, and yet do living
business by making newspapers. You have been
ns:nfo.mcd You have been once understood
% state that Brattlcborough was the village in
question; but ! was promptly and most reliably
adorned that no mill in that village is working
Ip Foreign Wool.


But suppose Foreign Wool costing six cents a
pound can be worked up into fair Sa,inets
Sleeps Grey, and other cheap Cloths, what do
,ou propose for our Woolgrowcrs? To raise the
duty from to Il per cent. will not increase the
p.icc of the Wool a cent pound, or the Cloth
over cent a yard. What then? Do you say,
Raise the duty still farther, SO as 10 keep out
most of the Foreign Wool? Why even 100 per
cent. would not make this Wool cost but twelve
cents pound, and 10 man who has TO feed his
sheep through a Northern winter can possibly
afford to grow Wool for any thing like that sum.
Ol your false premise that this cheap Foreign
Wool is fair competitor with our common
WOOL and with your fundamental principle that
10 duty is to be levied higher than The rate
which will afford most Revenue, cannot see
how our Wool. growers are to be saved from alb
solute ruin. Happily, they have ample security
IN the error Of your assumption and the fallacy
OF your logic.


Now see many good reasons why the Wool
duties should remain as they are. In the first
place they nave pOrked nell; our Wool-growers
have now d ready market and good price for
their Wool, and are doing quite as well as any
other class. The production of Wool is rapidly
extending, and if this article is too high, as CON-
pared with other things, it is certain to be brought
down by the home competition. Then the low
duty on the poor Foreign Wool, while it slightly
affects our Wool-growers, enables the Southern
planters to obtain their negro.cloths, blankets,
Nc. IL d IUN idtS-WillCi ouI lISlt, as
they grow no Wool, make few Woolens, and
many of them consider themselves injured rather
than benefited by Protection. These coarse
blankets come in at only Is per cent. duty, so
that those who want them can wear the Foreign
made article if it is cheaper or they prefer it.
Now would have no objection to increasing the
duty on this poor Wool even to fifty per cent. if
the duty on the fabrics made of it is advanced to
The same extent; bat to put up the duty on this
Wool TO fifteen per cent. and cut down that OF
the Woolen blankets TO ten, as was proposed and
neatly carried through the House by McKay's
bill last winter, would be TO give our work to
Foreign laborers instead OF our own-to ell the
land with British cloth instead OF Smyrna
Wool. My judgment is that the dutyis better
for all American interests now than it will be
after your party have had the fixing of it.


Your next point is made on silks. They are
now except Boiling Cloths twenty per cent?
charged by peight-Pongees and plain whites,
= -. ..-.D