New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-02-17
Fyor, Me Escsing Post Of Monday.
The Duty on Wool.

S.n,si advantage be will derive from the Iarh Faorics
OF Wool are 70 psy generally duty Of twensy,ioo1 per
.n, making difference OF FIVE per cent between the
o,rner Of doc rs and the owner Of wColen mills
The friend, Of the Tariff OF 1912 are greatly
With this proposal ncrcaso the doty on Wool and are
beginning TO decaim against 1t In the newspapers we
mink It. however, very reasonable proposal
The Observation-Disclosures Of the country are establish,
oa an solid basis Their we'll chosen sites on our rapio
,irsro and their ipyeuiously constructed machinery
hive them advantages almost independent Of tpe rhe
wages and viii always enable them 10 drive psohtaoe
huspeas whatever may be the duties on imported goods
owners of the wooden mills making al the present
moment profits which will easily bear little reduction
They are importing prodisous quantities oil tne cheap
wool of South America. and we see no reasen IN the
void why imported wool should not be faxed we'll as
imported iron. The duty would be strictly revenue
pty for tie reason that would be moderate not
10 stop the wooden mills, neither would operee as q
prohibition on imported woods AZ the snme time It
would give the woogrower the same Incidental sdvan-
taQe which duty laid fairly for the sake OF revenue
gives to the producers OF various other artcles
We have seen samples Of this South american DOL.
It has very unsghty appearance when IL Is hrs Drought
10 rnnrke. but when cesnsed from the quantities OF urt
1;th which the aeeces ncumbered good deal OF IL
moves TO be Wool of very fair quhiy almost precise
" of the degree Of moderate hneness WIN large
nroporticp of the Wool produced In this country.
There never in fact grosser fraud perpera'ed oy
nny act OF legislation than the trick put upon the Wool
growers by the Tariff of 1872 large number OF that
class by far the majority joined in the demand for an In
crease of duties and Protective Tariff Protective
Tariff was passed. but the duty South American Wool
vsas made nearly nominal and the EiLowners were b.
Il allowed all the benefit Of free trade in Wool, while
tho consumer WAS 10 pay on wooden ccths duty Of fort
Der cent The repeal of the Tariff CT 1912 ought as
matter Of common justice TO include repeal OF the
trick upon the Wool growers.
In MI Walkers scheme the duty on wooden blankets
which cost st the place whence they aTe brought not
than seventyhve cents EACH Is reduced 10 ten per
cent on value Those who object to raising the duty
on imported wool. pretend that the admission oil these
blankets low ratio Of duty will affect the market
for American wool. There is nothing in this objection
for the reason these blankets made of coarser
kind Of wool than produced in this country and there
fore their introduction at low duty cannot prcuoce the
interests OF the North American wool growers.
The South American wool. dirty but not coarse, comes
directly into competition with his feeces IL 1t costs but
sevon cents pound is because the principal weight
of the commodity consists in the foreign substances
which adhare TO IT, The blankets which 1t is pro-
posed TO admit the payment OF low duty will not at
all affect the wool grower in the way of competition and
being article OF great importance TO the poorer class
es II 10 hardly worth while loud them with heavy
duty for the sake Of increasing the dividends OF our wool
miIs
T We have thus made room for the entire ar
ticle of the Post on Wool and Woolens, that our
readers may see what defence of Mr.. Walkers
Tariff bill is offered by one OF the ablest and most
thorough Free Trade journals. Let the reader
compare this with what we have offered on the sub
ject, and consider these facts:
l. Tho Post says Mr.. Walkers scheme raises
considerably the duty on Wool, which it does only
on the poorest and coarsest Wool Why does The Pos,
conceal Tue fact that the present duty all the bet
ter qualities Of Wool is over forty per cent and is
to be reduced more than onc-half by Mr.. Walkers
bill
2. The Post says that the friends OF the Tariff
are dissatisfied with the proposed increase of the
duty on Wool and are beginning 10 dccia'n' against
it In the newspapers" Tho reference hereis plain
" to The Tribune. Is the assertion true? Have
we complained of the proposed increase of duty on
coarse Wool? Has any body so complained? We,
certainly should be glad 10 sec it raised TO 40 per
cent. If the duty ON coarse Wooden fabrics were
raised in proportion. But TO raise the duty on
South American Wool from five to twenty per cent.
and at the same time reduce the duty on coarse
Wooden fabrics manufactured therefrom from fifteen
to ten per ceni.--making the proposed duty on The
raw material twice as high rs on the abric-thcf is
surely wrong? How it benefit our farmers,
whose incidental advantage the Post affects to
care for? They are not likely1o engage very
sharply in the production OF w costing but seven
or even thoroughly oleaned) twice seven cents
pound, whether the duty be five, twenty, or fifty
per cent Their incidental advantage will be
found in supplying food, fuel, timber, stone &c TO
those employed in building and running the facto-
ries wherein this Wool is transformed into Cloth
But this Incidental advantage IS denied them by
Mr.. Walkers BILL which offers ten per cent bounty
10 the British over the American manufacture OF
these coarse goods.
g. If the Post asserts truly that the South Amer
can Wool has become (by the infusion OF Merino
and Saxony blood as fine as our common Wool, yet
- brought under seven cents per pound so as to come
n Ut the low duty, then it s most clear that the duty
On Ii ought TO be raised not merely to twenty per
cent. but much higher in order to give our wool
growers a chance to compete with it, But in that
case, the duties on imported Woolens ought not to
be cut down TO ten, fifteen and twenty five per cent
on Foreign valuations they shoud rather be en-,
HANGED l, can do the w DOL growers 70 good TO
maintain or advance duties on Wool if Woolens are
allowed TO come in al lower relative rates,
g. The Post says that the cheap South American
Wool, which comes in at FIVE per cent. by being
sworn TO have cost less than cents per pound
10 equal in quality and hneness average Wool
vet afterwards asserts that the coarse WOODEN
blankets are made OF coarser kind of Wool than
is produced in this country. Where that coarser
Wool comes from, and how much less than seven
cents pound paid for it, the Pos, does not inform
us. And what is to proven, the fabrics made from
ony Wool costing under seven cents pound coming
in al WOODEN blankets al the low duty, no man
can tell since they only restricted either in the
present or Mr.. Walkers bin by their value; all of
the prescribed size costing less than IS ceAts
each being admitted at the low duty, and with any
Wool under seven cents pound there can be little
difficulty in bringing the fabric within the prescribed
limits
s. The Post says that good Wool from South
America is now admitted a, the low duty as cost
ing under seven cents pound, being dirty busnot
cosSse' because the principal weight OF the
fleece consists in the foreign Substances which adj
here to it" If this is land we fear i, is,l then
Mr., Walker and his sabosdina,es are perpe,radng
agross wrong on the Wool growing interest by I'M
dermining and defyipg the presen, Tariff which
says:
Sec l. 80. Proridsd Jartkey Tia, if any Woo, h., i'm
ported having on dtt any material or impur tes
other thsn those naturally belonging the aeece and
he reduceS n yAlus seven cents >a- 49,. :