The Middlebury people's press. [volume] (Middlebury, Vt.) 1841-1843, 1843-07-12
COMMUNICATIONS.
To the Editor of the Peoples Press

larv of the Treasury relative 10 tho con-
stIuction 10 be given 10 the word"coarse"as
applied to wool in The tariff OF 1912, iogeth-
er with letters from myselfto the first comp
ifoller o. the Treasury, and 10 the Secreta-
ry of the Treasury, since the adjournment
of Congress on the same subject.
Among the resolutions of The Loco Foco
State Convention at Montpelier, in January
last, was the following:
"Resolved, That the word "coarse" as
used in the Tariff is calculated TO deceive
the wool growers, as the price at which the
wool is purchased in foreign ports decides
the quality and The duty TO be paid
On seeing this resolution. requested the
members Of the Vermont Delegation 10
hold meeting for the purpose of consider
ing the subject, and determining whether
any thing was necessary 10 be done TO 10
sure Just construction OF the clause of the
tariff relating TO coarse wool. Upon con-
suliaiion il was thought proper TO address
the Secretary of the Treasury on the sub
ject, and was requested TO prepare a draft
Tor that purpose, which was submitted 10 a
future meeting. The letter 10 the Secreta-
ary of the Treasury herewith handed you
was the result.
Assuming that the practical construction
given 10 the clause Of the Custom Houses,
might be such as 10 give colour to the as
sertIon in the resolution, We presented in
the letter, the arguments which we deemed
conclusive 10 show what ought TO be the con-
strucrion in order to carry out the intention
of Congress in regard TO protection 10
the wool growing interest.
Ii remains 10 be seen what course will be
taken by the Executive Department on this
question. Congress cannot both make, and
execute the laws. Justly expounded and
faithfully executed, The law, am confident
would be found TO give fair protection to
the wool growing interest. The purpose of
the tariff law of 1892 was 10 admit free of
duty, only wool really and truly c0Grse, and
and not coming in competition with the pro-
duction of our own hOcks. The true intent
an purpose of The existing law was sim
ply to carry out the policr, in this respect of
the law of 1884, as think is fully shown in
the letter Of the Vermont Delegation, to the
Secretary ofthe Treasury. That the clause
relating to coarse wool, will admit Ofthe con-
strucrion assumed in the Resolution of the
Convention above referred to, | am sure no
man, not determined to disparage the tariff
for political effect, will undertake to MAIN
tain. For those who had the most to do in
adjusting the difficult matter of coarse wool,
| claim not only an honest intention to insure
protection TO the wool growing interest, but
success in securing such an enactment as,
fnirly carried into execution, will attain the
end at which they aimed. If that end is not
attained let The responsibility rest ,chere ii
ought TO rest.
After all, even under what may have been
an improper construction. and and imperfect
execution, of the law by the Executive De-
partment. it would seem, from reference TO
the quantity of wool costing seven cents and
under imported into the United States du-
ring the first six months of the present fiscal
year that there has been very great falling
off in the importation of that description of
wool under the new tariff;a falling off which
ought to silence the clainors of those who
have been laboring with SO much zeal for the
last six months, 10 pursuade the people that
the new tariff furnishes no check to the ru-
nous importations of fine wool which took
plare under the duiy-free clause of the tar
if of 1892
have recently obtained from the Treasu-
ry Department n statement, showing the |
quantity and value of wool costing seven
cents and under, and the quantity and value |
costing over seven cents, imported into the |
United States during the six months ending |
, IN the SlSt of March last, being the first six |
months of the present fiscal year. The tol- |
owing comparison of these importation with |
hose of the preceding year | commend to
he consideration OF tn use who are really de- |
;irous to know whether the labors of their |
Representatives inCongress have been of any |
avail in securing protection to the wool grow !
ing interest.
From the statement Just received from the |
Register of the Treasury it appears that, du |
ring the first half of the present fiscal year,
which commenced one month after the pres |
mt tariff went into operation there was i'm |
ported
Wool costing cent. or under
per pound. ssl. 1868 lbs.
Wool costing over 7cents LIS, 1862 "
Doubling the amounts for the imporiations
IT the entire year, and they will stand as fol-
ows-
Wool costing cents or
under I,762.736
Wool costing over cents ISL, 1924
Now compare this with the importations
If the year ending Sept. 80 1912, which were
Is follows
WOOL costing 5 cents or
under 10.53s, 99s lbs.
Wool costing over 8 cents
75I,Ss4
A falling off, upon the establishment of
he new Tariff, in the importation of duty
rec wool, from ten millions and half, 10
me million and three quarters of pounds,
While there is diminution of the importa-
ion of wool subject to protecting duty of
more than one half. Will those who de-
bounce the Ia riff as altogether inefficient to
protect the interests of the wool growers,
ell me what this means'
But there is another very striking and
more important point in the comparison.-
The importation of fine wool. duty free IN.
Ter the operation Of the tariff of 1882, it is
veil known was almost wholly from Buen.
IS Ayres. 1t was that importation which
weakened special attention to the subject
If coarse wool. in revising the tariff, and
induced the modification ofthe wool clause.
n the manner described in the following
ettar. Now comnara fbo r.