The Middlebury people's press. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1841-1843, 1842-10-04

ducing fine wool from abroad, at cheap
rate, have an important bearing, not only
on The pro islons touching the admission,
upon nominal duty. of coarse wool, sup
posed not TO compete with our own, but up
on the question as 10 the amount and kind
of duty 10 be levied on other wool. The
bill on YOUR table fixes that duty at 80 per
renium ad yalOrem--beIng ten per cent be-
low the duty on woollcns, and 10 that extent
at least, as have shown, a departure from
the settled policy VIII ch has eng protected
the wool growing and wool manufacturing
interests. by equal duties. That the duty
on wool should be raised 10 at least 40 per
cent, cannot, think, admit of question.
The extensive introduction from South A.
mer;ra, at a reduce radiation, of wool of at
least medium finencss, suggests the impor-
lance of having the addition to the 80 per
cent in the bill, consist of specific duty.
would prefer the union Of the ad valnrem and
specific duties in the proportion fixed IN the
bill reported by the Committee of Manufac-
turers-namely 70 per cent al valorcm an
cents specific. winch would be equivalent
on wool costing 30 cents, 10 40 per cent,
and more than that. on wool costing less
than 30 cents. If, however, the Committee
should insist on dItferant proportion, then
let there he simply an addition of three
cents specific duty, TO the 80 per cent al
valorem, agreeabiy 10 the report of the Sec
retarv of the Treasury. which would be a.
bout equivalent to the 26 per cent. and 4
cents, IN the bill OF the Comniree of Man.
ufar;rr's.
The specifi; duty, being equal in its a.
mount on each pound of wool, whatever
may be its cost would give, what the cheap
ened process of raising fine wool demands
a duty irrespulIve Of that cheapness-com-
pensating. in some degree, for tho depressed
valuation Of the wool, BY an increased per
centum ad r1alorem upon tin other words
reaching. and acting upon, The 'cooL, in its
Just relation 10 our own wool. with which
it comes in competition. rather than upon
its ralue in the market from which ii is i'm
ported. hope. therefore, to see an addi-
lion Of a specific duty to the 80 per cent. in
the sill before us.
In reviewing the history of our protec-
ting legislation, have been impressed
with the remarkable difference between the
protection extended 10 tho Woollen and the
Cotton interests. BY the tariff of 1916, ev-
cry square yard of cotton cloth, without ref
erence TO its quality, was declared TO be
of the value of 25 cents, and duty Of %
per cent. was assessed upon that raIue.
The effect of that mode of assessing the du-
tv, as all know, has been 10 exclude coarse
coltons from our market, and give it entire
" TO the American manufacturer. The
minimum valuation, rs it is called, was SIREN
uousIy advocated by Mr.. CALHOUN, who
was a jealous supporter of the principle OF
protection in 1916, which he thus fully car.
ried ont, tn regard 10 The faJrick manufac'
turcG from The great Southern staple. That
same minimum, and that same duty, be ii
was steadily maintained thro'
all the tariff changes, from 1916, to the pas
sage of the act of 1882, when the duty of %
per cent. was continued upon a minimum
increased to 80 cenis--the effect
of which was an increase of The duty.
Now, how has it been with woollcns7 Up
to the year 1928, the duties by which thev
we're protected, were laid IN the form of "A
per centHns on their real foreign value-not
an artificial value rs in The case of cotions.
The tariff act of that year fixed. as | have
already stated. graduated scale of mini.
NUNS upon woolen cloths-being the same
which had been, and still is, ap-
piled to cottons; but, by the act of 1892,
that principle was abandoned in regard 10
wooliens, and the levying of a simple per
centrtm on their value was substituted.
Under the steady application of the mini
mum principle, corons have not only enjoy
ed the benefit of duty, amounting to pro'ii
bitinn on The coarser fabrics, but the addi-
tonal benefit of an exemption, 10 great
extent. from the effect of fraudulent invni-
ces while the wnolens interest has suffer-
ed. and is still suffering, greatly, on account
of such frauds These frauds should have
been, and should now be, prevented by, Ell
Their a specific du'y on every square yard, or
by combination, rs in the case of wool,
since 1923, Of specific and an al valorem
duty; or by an al valorcm applied to min-
imum valuation, as in The case fcotions, or
a series of minimum valuations, as in the
case Of woollenS. under the law of 1928.
1t must b. obvious 10 all. that if the mini
mum principle had been applied to woollens
bv the act of 1916, as it was TO cottons, and
had been rs steadily maintained ever since.
The wool growing wool manufacturing in
terrstS would not have suffered the reverses
towhich they have been doomed under a less
favorable policy. They would have enjoy
ed steadiness ofprotcciion, which is indis-
pensible to success in any business Deepen
ding in any considerable degree, on protec-
ting legislation for support.
have been the more impressed with the
Injustice of this distinction, and have been
led 10 reflect more unon the policy which O.
rieinated and has continued IL, by passage
in the report of the Committee ofCommerce
and Manufactures, made in March 1916.
preparatory to the enacting of the Iarift law
of that year. Referring 10 report male
by the same Committee iE February pre-
ceeding. IN favor of sustaining the manu.
facture of cotton. the committee said
"Epery reason then urged for sustaining
the cotton manufacturing Establishments,