Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1857-04-18
NUMBER Is.

of fact | understand that the sugar interest
is content with twenty three per cent All
those with whom have conversed have told
me that they were content to be placed
where the other protected articles were left
What other interest is there Not the
hemp nor cottons. The cottons receive
twenty-three per cent. and need not dwell
on that, because | have talked with many
Of the cotton men, and they say they are
conteGted. is it the wooden interest I
think can show that, with tho changes
made here, the manufacturers of wooden ar
ticles are in far better position than they
were under the old tariff Under the tariff
OF 1916, they paid duty of thirty pr cent
on the raw material, and they received
protection ranging from twenty to twenty
five and thirty per cent on the manufac-
tured article propose to reduce the pro-
tcetion or. the r.anutactured articles of wool
to the rates of twenty-three and nineteen DR.
cent, and to reduce the duty on raw wool
to eight per cent. Under the tariff of 1916,
then, from the protection Of twenty pr cent,
you must deduct the thirty per cent. on the
raw material, supposed by the Secretary of
the Treasury to constitute one-third of its
entire value; that is to say, ten per cent Of
the whole, 80 that the protecting duty was
equivalent only to ten per cent. But under
my proposition the manufacturer of wooden
receives nineteen per cent, from which a
deduction of one-third of eight per cent.
leaves little more than sixteen per cent.
The same mode of calculation would show
that even the thirty per cent. duty of 1886
did not afford quite as much protection as
the twenty three per cent. duty according
to my scheme. So that the same process
which benefits the manufacturer cheapens
| the price to the consumer the manufactu-
rer being benefited, not because he sells his
cloth for more, but because he buys his raw
material for less.
Not only this, but the WOODEN manufactu-
rer is benefited by some other changes which
propose. lie gets his dye-stuffs either
free or at reduced rate of duty That is
worth something to him, so that he stands
in a better position than he did under the
tariff of 1876. Who else, then, is there to
whom shall appeal? Is it the grower of
the raw material of wool, who is reduced
from thirty to eight per cent l aeknow,
ledge that If were to consult my personal
sympathy, have more sympathy for the
grower OF wool than the manufacturer but
believe that i'll making this change, while
we benefited the manufacturer and cheaper
the commodity, We shall not injure the wool
grower; aid | will proceed briefly to give
my reasons for this opinion
1t is manifest that if the wool grower de-
iaands protection. he admits that he cannot
sell abroad. If he cannot sell abroad he
cannot sell at home, unless there be home
market; that IS, unless The manufacturers
If wool can succeed. lie depends on them
for that market, where he has advantages
in supplying it. Now, it is known that
with the thirty per cent. on the raw mate
rial, the finer broadcloth factories have gone
down, and that this rate Of duty on the raw
material has crippled and restrained tho
progress of the wooden manufacturer. There
is reason to believe that by diminishing this
duty, and allowing the manufactures to go
on, You will produce still greater demand
for domestic wool. There is reason to be-
lieye it, because the English history shows
it, When they took the duty from wool,
the manufacturers were enabled to extend
their operations the home demand increas.
ed, and the price with it. The reason is.
that, i'll order to use for certain purposes
the qualities of wool which We mostly pro-
duce, we have to import finer wool to mix
with them We find it profitable. too. to
import the woods of South America, which,
they say, enable cur own to receive the dyes
better than they would without the admix-
ture. But it is obvious that the woods which
we raise for the most part stand in no dan,
ger of foreign competition. The wool from
sheep whose carcass is valuable can stand
the competition of that from sheep raised
any where, if the carcass is of no value
where it is raised. As proof of this fact.
we see that the English grown wool defcs
all competition at home, because the carcass
pays the cost of production. In any coun-
itry, where the Leioesters, the Cotswolds.
and the Southdowns are careass-pay ing
sheep their wool defes all competition for
Ethe purposes to which it is applicable. But
there are some uses to which this wool can.
not be applied and it has been shown by
experience that the importation of the faer
woods, duty free is an auxiliary rather than
M adversary to the production of the longer
nd eoarscr kinds. English experience has
proved this, and | believe We should find a
ike result il we were to repeat their expert
aeut; for we, toe, with eur railway facli-
les, can make the carcass valuable in al
most any portion Of the country where sheep
are raised Indeed ! believe that on our
mountain pastures, where lands are cheap.
and on the western prairies, we should be
able to defy any competition even in the
finer wools or if we ceased to raise the fine
wool sheep, it would be only because the
other kinds, which produce a profitable car
cass, are still more valuable than even tho
merino or the Saxon. We should change
the kind which was not raised, not because
the finer woods We're less profitable than
those which came from abroad, but because.
owing to the increase of our population, and
the demand for meat, the carcass-paying
sheep is more valuable.
As proof that this is not mere theory,
find the facts stated that in France, whore
heretofore they have had chiefly the marino,
they are already beginning to increase the
English varieties, the Leicester and Cots
void, in order that they may avail themselves
iof the more valuable carcass. If this be so,
| say the raiser of raw wool, so far from