New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-10-06


excessive home production In $780, the annual vauS OF
our domestic wool manufactures s68 6Ses IN lSoo
had risen 70 s76 Increase ia fat tbat our
statistic returns show similar results IN re8arn o .o
with DrodUcon that has Increased eight years 100
per cent. while our population has advanced on The
wonder as it seems to me- is that the business ID NOV
utterly PROSTATE
THE EFFECT OF TARIFF.
II has often been asserted that the depressed cohdon
Of the wool industry due to the present sh 'ah Oh
wool and woOens. The facts and figures just aduueeu
show how baseless this allegation is That benehcent
law 80 far from having injurious 6nec on thl grea
national interest rather DC salu W a,S en
from have already re1erfeu 10 inc agency
of the cotton famine In stimulating elsewhere the grow
ing and the manufacture of wool ~ leu 10
era years past the stock OF merno wOos-hose WOODS
which chiefly compete VIII the amGrica IN pr1So rern
| market, aud has sold at prices ruinonSly low;
Had our wool growers not been Defended agalnSSV
hons npon millions their sheep must have gone to the
sbambes and their business would have been ruined IL
would be- SATISFACTION to many those persons who as
cribe 60 the tf the present low prices OF american
been raised by the introduction of that foreign surplus
at lower rate Of duty so, too, OF manufactures Mneh
the war ended the Government ceased to buy ana nav
ing its hands accumulation OF army clothing
threw the market at rates that were extremely low
since that time Also the surplus of foreign manufactures
offered at low prices has helped TO weigh down our mar
In this crisis what but the Increased duty on
goods has saved manufacturers from general over
throwi viii not show US in what way the re-
duction of those duties, and the flow OF foreign e0o15
which would inevitably have deuged our fi
market could have helped the American produceri Un
til questions like these are satisfactorily ahsweIeu Wy
the opponent Of the law his positions ana assertions
must be regarded of small account our Wooi mus
try being depressed by overproductlon. ls reSeoo
20 the normal relations Of demand and supply can aoho
bring relief In some classes OF the wool nan1laG.re,
where the excess has been less ans these branches
are again reasonably prosperous UneSS in our
farI laws time and progress cannot fail TO bring the
same relief ALL The existing law has done gOou serv'
ice in protecting the American producer against Excess
sye and runous lmportations at time when the danger
Of such importation great and there Is goou tesoa
10 believe that is well adapted TO insure the couuu
development and the enduring prosperity OF AmerIoah
Industry At the least let us give 1t fair trial Inc unu
Currency have interfered with legitimate working.
and make 1t somewhat difficult TO estimate It's Ell 10 NY
as permanent policy. Not until the business u. the
monetary interests OF the country rest once more upon
natural basis shall we be fully prepared to decide the
point The consumer certainly, has some reason 10 DO
satisfied with results for the prices OF many WOODEN
goods Feckoned in gold are actually less tnan t6e T
aware. at conference of leading manufactur:
s 1 aHd and on after full condeaon and dis
CUSTOM that the principle which underes our present
It is in fact only clearer and stronger expression OF
the idea which the (socaed Morrill, Tariff OF 1851
Sim who raises and him who works up the raw material
1t tends directly 10 reconcile great interests when haa
by substituting united endeavOr for hostile action, aud
system well considered for capriclous Ignorance u gives
ground of stability and to hope for it, which
| While it protects tho wool-grower, It simply
| we're his raw material free The duties on woods
| are practically ncutralized by specific duty on
wooleps which, purposes OF revenue and protection
are also taxed with dd rdOrem rate Another ana very
important feature OF the present tariff is Its new, smpe
and entirely practical classification OF WOODS our Wool
have been subjected TO much severe aud
unjust remark under the mistaken notion that the Whole
amount OF the duty on wooden aprlcs as Rroe
ton for them The true state OF the case Is very
and be known. In the first place. the fpecc duty
far as that goes gives them no protection ~ Is COM
pensaory merely balancing the duty when they pay on
part by the duties on other materials used in manufac
turing processes, and by local taxes from which their
the tariff gives to the wool manufactures f we except
few goods OF the finer deScrpti0ns Is less han ~ per
cent, rate which cannot be Regarded as eNceSS'oor u
| WOOL GROWING.
Considered as an element OF national prosperity, the
oring OF wool is less essential than It's manufacture
Perhaps it should be regarded even more Important
in view OF the food which is thus supplied, and OF the
support which is given to agriculture However this
may 1t s certain that these two great industries are
mutually related and bound TO another by common
interests Neither Of them can long prosper unless tho
other prospsrs also Let our manufactures come TO an
end and the grower unable 10 compete with foreign
woolraisers would have no market for his clip The
manufacturer the other hand needs constantly re.
liable supply Of homegrown WOOL not only TO regulate
the cost Of his raw material but also TO insure sound
sonnd policy alike require that both Of important
departments of the nations industry should De Kept so
far legislation thus keep them. on footing oil
equality and in such position will leave TO their
| foreign rivals no advantage over them.
PROTECTION VS. FREE TRADE
On the great questions Of protection and free trade IL
may be expected that should say something
cason like this and at a time when they receiving
more than usual attention In the discussions and the
Journals OF the day believe there be greater
trade or protection are universally applicable. The pol
ICY which would benefit one country might be highly
injurious another. Even in the same country the
condition OF things may 80 change IN course OF Time as
TO Justly s baen T ST ee ne yi
may the tarf question DO regarded as pIaetcaI qnes
and apart from facts than idle for IL tends to
misead. Production being the source, ana tne only
tariff legislation should aim imparng TO the labor Of
the country the highest degree Of productive efficiency
s and coHd hHtSS 'I and calling into use al
Science can bring to is aid To adopt and enforce the
system OF those who are now elamorng Ior free trade
would be the very OF this IL would result in
tame surrender to other nations OF all that We have
Improvement, and would remand to those ruder de-
scpOns Of labor IN which mechanical skill and science
protection for American MANUFACTURED not certainly be-
countrymen less capable than their Euro
Ssx a Sf no Il is not because our
natural advantages less nor from inabyto acquire
lures 10 a perfection nowhere else attained There are
however certain conditions which affect, directly or in
other Manufacturing nations have decided advantage
us. refer to the rates OF wages paid Tor
labor the rates OF local taxation, and the rates OF
interest on capital. That these arc things beyond
the control Of our manufacturers no one VIII ueny Ihat
the necessity OF paying in ali these respects, much
higher rates than their rivals have TO pay puts them at
serious disadvantage seems equally certain Ihat there
Ia one way and only one by which this damaging DIS
parity can be cOunterbslanced, think you VIII also
allow TO be perfectly clear Let us see how TINS case
Revenue who has investigated this subject at home and
abroad thus states the difference between the rates OF
wages paid In the United States and the rates which OBJ
tain several other countries gold being taken as the
standard In all cases) In tho cotton manufacture the
excess OF paid In the United States over the wages
paid In Great Britain Is a ITO per cent: over belgium
the IS per cent In the wool manufacture the
Great Britain u.s. in wooden mills, 20 per cent?
In carpet and worsted mills So per cent over France