WHO SHALL DECIDE! The Question Is "Shall Wool Be Free?" A Meeting Criticized. The introduction of a bill into the house of representatives patting wool on the free list by Mr. Springer, chairman of the ways and means committee, has been the means of drawing from their winter quarters the small clique of wool manufactures and wool growers who acknowledge as leaders William Whitman Whit-man and Judge Lawrence, respectively. Ever since 1865, when under the leadership lead-ership of Mr. .Whitman and J udge Lawrence's Law-rence's predecessors a small number of wool manufacturers and wool growers calling themselves the "National Association Asso-ciation of Wool Manufacturers" and the "National Wool Growers' association," both titles adopted for the occasion, mat at Syracuse and prepared the tariff bill on wool and woolens which was enacted into law in 1887. These two cliques have settled among themselves how much the American people should be taxed on the woolen goods they buy. These two men have gone about with their respective associations in their pockets, so as to be ready at any moment mo-ment to call a meeting and have such resolutions as they desired adopted. Their last meetings, held a short time ago, are characteristic. It was announced that the wool manufacturers man-ufacturers of New England met in a body at Whitman's session of the National Na-tional Association of Wool Manufacturers. Manufactur-ers. This meeting adopted resolutions protesting against any change in the McKinley tariff on wool and woolen goods. And it was the intention to give notice to the whole country that all the wool manufacturers were united in support sup-port of the resolutions. In commenting upon this meeting The American Wool Reporter says: "If The Herald means that the wool manufacturers of New England 'met in a body' when the recent memorial against the Springer bill was adopted by the 'National Association of Wool Manufacturers,' we are surprised that our usually well informed contemporary should have been so deceived. In addition addi-tion to the very small attendance at the meeting at which the 'memorial' in question was adopted, it should be stated that some of those present agreed to the 'memorial' with the express reservation that a certain section of the McKinley bill might need to be changed. An explanation ex-planation as to the small number of manufacturers by whom this 'memorial' 'memo-rial' was adopted is necessary in justice to a large and increasing number of influential in-fluential manufacturers who have not believed in the McKinley bill and who do not like to read the misleading statement state-ment that 'the wool manufacturers of New England met in a body' in its support." judge Lawrences association new a aieeting abor-jtte sani4-ime. - Being an astute politician, he chose the Ohio senate sen-ate chamber as the place of meeting, and the papers say that "a number of members of the legislature and other politicians were present." The Wool Reporter says of this meeting: "Among the list of resolutions adopted was one demanding a duty upon cotton, and President William LawTence then delivered de-livered one of his lengthy and characteristic character-istic addresses. The latter portion of his speech was devoted to a statement of the recent imports of Peruvian and Egyptian cotton, and to a demand for 'full and adequate protection for the wool and cotton industries.' " It is about time that the American people should have some say on so important im-portant a matter as a tax on their clothing cloth-ing solely for the benefit of a few political polit-ical wool growers aud manufacturers.