as reduced to about eighty
or ninety million dollars. It was, therefore, a great industry.
And yet it was left solitary and alone without the slightest
protection given to it directly or indirectly. The manufacture of
woolen goods was amply protected. Amendments were proposed and
adopted without dissent, adding largely to the protection at first
proposed on manufactures of wool.

The value of the wool in woolen goods as a rule is equal to the
cost of manufacturing the cloth. The duty on cloth under this law
averages 40 per cent., so that the domestic manufacturer of cloth
gets the benefit not only of a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of
manufacture, but he gets a duty of 40 per cent. on the cost of the
wool in the cloth, thus getting a protection of 80 per cent. on
the cost of manufacture, while the farmer gets no protection against
foreign competition for his labor and care. This gross injustice
is done under the name of free raw materials. When I appealed to
the Senate for a duty on wool I was answered by one Senator that
free wool was all that was left in the bill of the Democratic
doctrines of free raw materials, and, if only for this reason, must
be retained. I made two speeches in support of a duty, but was
met by a united party vote, every Democrat against it and every
Republican for it. In the next tariff bill I hope this decision
will be reversed.

On the 31st of May, 1894, I made a long speech in favor of the
McKinley law and against the Wilson bill. While the McKinley law
largely reduced the taxes and duties under pre-existing laws, yet
it furnished ample revenue to support the government. The object
of the act was declared to be to reduce the revenue. It was
impartial to all sections and to all industries. The south was
well cared for in it, and every reasonable degree of protection
was given to that section. In growing industries in the north,
which it is desirable to encourage, an increase of duty was given.
In nearly all the older industries the rates were reduced, and the
result was a reduction of revenue to the extent of $30,000,000.
There was no discrimination made in the McKinley act between
agriculture and mechanical industries. The Wilson bill sacrificed
the interests of every farmer in the United States, except probably
the growers of rice and of fruit in the south. The McKinley act,
I believe, was the most carefully framed, especially in its operative
clauses and its classifica