The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1872-03-30
TARIFF ON wooLENS.

EDITORS FREE TRADER: have just been
perusipg pamphlet containing the Memorial
Of the manufacturers of woelen goods TO the
committee of ways and means of the House of
Representatives of the United States: = and
knowing that you sympathise with mo on this
subject, 1 concluded to communicate you ny
views, not only with respect to the effects which
would inevitably result from Carrying out the
prayer Of the wooden manufacturers petition,
but the Injurious effect of revenue tariff and the
benefit to be derived from free trade. The au.
thor of the memorial TO which have reference
is Edward Harris. His argument, to casual
observer, seems quite logical; but let rs see if
it is 50. As this may come under the observa.
ton of many who will not read the memorial, I
will quote the language of Mr. Edward Harris,
its author He says:
"In conclusion we believe that a revision Of
the present tariff, in such way az to allow wool
and all raw material entering into the cost of
manufacturing wooden goods to come free of
duty, aud revenue tariff of about 30 per cent
imposed on foreign manufactured goods, would
stimulate, diversity and increase the nanufac.
turing of WOODEN fabrics IN this country, and
thereby give permanent advantage to the wool
growers, as we'll AS employm snt TO our mechau.
les and laborers."
Now, why did not Mr. Harris cay and give q
permanent advantage to the wooden manufacta.
rers Of New England for all time to COME in.
stead of saying land thereby give a permanent
advantage to the wool growers?" Does Mr..
Harris think he can convince the wool grower
of America that good cloth canuot be manufac.
tured from American grown wool? Does not
wool grow as long on the same breed of sheep in
America NJ in EuropeY need not say any.
thing more on this point for the inconsistency
of his theory refutes itself. will ask why do
the manufacturing menopolies Of the eastern
and middle states still refuse to show fair play
to the producing classes OF the country? Why
ask for the retention OF 80 per cent. ad calorem
duty on imported goods and free trade on foreign
wool? Now ask every American cities to
decide this question for his own fiuancia! inter-
est. Why don't Mr.. Harris come out frankly
and honestly and say that the removal of the
duty on foreign wool will force competition be.
tween foreign and domestic wool producers
Can American producers compete with foreign
any moro than American manufacturers can
compete with foreign7 And that is the song
they have been singing fer the last seventy
years. Now shall We be forced BY 30 per cent
tariff t. buy their cloth, unless they by like
tariff are forced to buy our wool
Mr.. Harris says, our Canadian neghbors ex.
change their cloth for Australian wool, and with
free trade he says We could do the same How
long is it since the manufacturing monopolies of
the eastern and middle states have told MS they
could not compete with their foreign neighbors
Does Mr.. Harris refsse to endorse any longer
their past conclusions in political economy Mr..
Hnrri, says, "The finest grades Of wool, which
are essential in manufacturing the finest quail.
ties Of cloth, have never been produced IN this
country" And he omits to say that, by the
protection of II revenue tariff. they forced us to
pay ,h.m three times "a much for American
.hoddy aud coarse bro.deloth "A our CanadiAn
mivhbors charged for the finest quality Of En.
vlish bro.dclo,h. IL this our reward for pro.
.sotinv our home manufacturers? Does he wish
to open competition between US and wool grow.
ers with whom we cannot compete, and thus
force us to desert the interest OF wool gro wing
entirely? Az view the matter, the only ques.
tioas to be decided are lat, Gould our domestic
interests sustain themselves II We offered free
trade to all Nationsp I'd, Gould VIC not con.
duct our government under free trade policy
with one.fourth OF the present ooet3
! And will say that believe the government