It seems that when the top duty suggested by Mr. Whitman came to the Senate Committee in 1897 it struck a snag at once. It was _prohibitive_—just as the higher one for which it had been substituted—_the figures were different, but not their effect_. Mr. North was summoned to explain—the Finance Committee having apparently accepted him as its wool expert. Mr. North consulted Mr. Whitman and an agitated correspondence followed. The letters to Mr. North show that Mr. Whitman was in great alarm lest the duty he had suggested be lowered: “No possible legislation in connection with the woollen schedule would be so dangerous to the woollen industry as legislation which would _favor the importation of tops_.” “You know how important it is, not only to me, but to the whole wool industry of the United States, that such rates of duty should be imposed upon tops as will enable them to be made here _and not to be imported_ from foreign countries.” “The prosperity of the woollen industry in this country depends wholly upon the _ability of the domestic manufacturers to manufacture the tops here_.” “It is of the greatest importance that the Arlington Mills products (tops and yarns) have the _full measure_ of protection accorded to associated industries.” These extracts and the context show conclusively that though Mr. Whitman may not have wanted a rate so high that it would be suspicious, he was after a duty which would be prohibitive, and that he was depending upon the confidential relations of the paid secretary of the wool association with members of the United States Senate in charge of the tariff bill to secure what he wanted.
Mr. Whitman’s second defence—that it was the wool-growers, not he, that kept the high duty on tops in the Dingley Bill—loses its weight also when one looks into the origin of that duty. It first appeared in the McKinley Bill of 1890, and so far as the writer has been able to discover from an extended examination of the debates and hearings, the top duty was _devised_ for the McKinley Bill by Mr. Whitman. Nobody else ever seems to have had anything to do with it. He advocated it in 1889 before the Senate Finance Committee. He presented it in January, 1890, to the Ways and Means Committee, explaining and defending it. Mr. Whitman was the father of the obnoxious top duty. He found it was suspicious. He revised it so that it would “look better,” but do the same work!