Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1883-09-20

r pie than the placing of wool and raw
e materials on the free list. No industry
D would be injured, but all would be pro
meted and encouraged
= He expressed the sentiment of hi:
r Democratic colleagues us shown by {
vote on the Mills resolutions. A mum
Der of Republicans spoke and voted
+ against the bill CMessrs Mckinley, Tay.
lor, E. b., and Taylor. J. D., Robinson
and Rice, all of Ohio. among othsrs) be-
. cause of the reduction of duty on WOO
, alone.
Many Republicans voted for the bill
who were opposed to any reduction of
duty on wool, but to secure 4 substan-
tial reduction of unnecessary internal
revenue taxation, trusting to the future
to correct all errors.
i was personally opposed to the bill as
it passed because | believed the rsduc-
tlOn of the duty OH wool was unwise
unnecessary and dangerous to the great
wosl-producing interests of the country.
1t may he the dangers apprehended by
me were magnifed somewhat. The rate
liked in the law is as recommended by
the tariff commission, of which Mr. A NJ
Garfield, president Of the National Wool
Growers Association, was member.
quote from recently published ar
ticle of Mr. Garfield on the effect of the
new duties on wool:
"One change recommended by the
commission is incorporated into the new
law, and will prove of material adVan-
tage. refer to the dividing point be-
tween woods that are 10 pay duty of 10
cents per pound, and those that are to
pay u cents per pound. Heretofore the
division has been 32 cents value, and
hereafter it is to be brought down-to 80
cents value at the last port where ship
ped to this country. The effect of this
change will be to make considerable
amount of wools hitherto paying a duty
of ten cents per pound and II per cent.
sd valorum-averaging, say 1873 cents
hereafter dutiable at II cents per pound
a reduction of I.3 cents. or exactly 10 per
cent. Tie proportion coming in under
the II ceuts duty will be largely increas-
ed" ETC.
h And speaking of its effect on prices of
wool he says:
"In view of all the circumstances,
therefore, will answer the question of
probable effect on future prices by say
lag IudI, iu my OpiHlOu, HO oCiIOuS uc-
preston will follow the law or 1SS3."
And he adds:
"As the tariff of 1857 did not advance
prices, but merely diminished importa-
items it may reasonably be inferred that
the tariff of 1888 Though providing for
reduction will not operate to bring down
prices. The duty of 10 cents per pound
imposed by the law of 1888 will be the
equivalent of 10 per cent. ad valorum on
Mestiza wool"
Mestiza wool-Argentine Republic
wool-is what protection is most nesded
against.
- Twenty-Five per cent. ad valorum is
what Democrats in last Congress voted
for.
Mr. Garfield speaking of the sufficisn-
cy of the wool protection under the pres
ent law, adds:
when the rampant is high enough to
keep out the enemy. its purpose is as
fully achieved as if it had been built Il
mountain high"
DR. Randall, who presided over the
last meeting of the National Wool
Covers association, Endorsed the Law of
1888 when he said to the association.
"We asked for justice and not for ia
.vor, and believe attained these precise
objects as nearly as practicable in the
provisions of the law"
AS against the ignorant and false
statements in the Democratic pamphlet
put, on the question of injury to the
wool-grOwers, their two distinguished
and eminent presiding officers.
The foolish Democratic idea that the
whole tariff on an article inurss to the
benefit individually of-homs producers |
and is paid by consumers, is unworthy
of the intelligent age in which we live. |
The idea was made the basis of the
statement of wrong to Ohio Wool-Grow
ers. AS appears already, the high du
ties under the act of 1867 did not raise |
the price of wool, but they kept from
our shores foieign-raised wool, leaving |
our own ilUckmaSterS to compete in |
prices among themselves. Increased |
production and lower prices followed |
the act of 1861. In 1870, Mr. Greedy, in |
an essay, said of that act:
Most certainly, if either wool grow
ers orwoolen manufacturers anticipated
enhanced prices for their productions
because of the protection thus secured !
they have been disappointed. Neither
wool nor wOolens now command prices
so high as they did, when the wool tariff
CT 1857 was enacted.
"The law that protection inevitably
tends by stimulating home production
to Il reduction in prices is here striking
ly illustrated"
Without adequate protection the in
crease in the production of wool in the
United States was very little from 1867
to 1870.
N 1870 we produced 100, ,lO2 ,347 pounds
of 2.6 pounds per capita; In 1880 our
wool product was 240.2Sl,751, or 4.6 lbs.
per capita. The production in 1880 was
only 6O0OOOOO pounds.
Before the tariff of 1867 we imported
from the Argentine Republic and the
Cape of Good Hope the greater part of
oui clothing wools; now (lSS2-3) only 3
per cent of such woods are,or are likely
to be, imported. The importations are
chiefly carpet woods.
BY vir,us of a Republican tariff and
without increasing prices, we are our
own wool producers, and we shall con-
tinue to be, unless Democrats get into
power and put wool, as raw material, OH
the free list.
While there may be less danger than
was apprehended to our wool interest
under the present law, still | think the
duty on wool should not have been re-
iuced, and that it should be restored.
By protective duty on wool we not
only insure increased home production
of wool, but mutton also, for food sup
ply.
No greater calamity could befall ouI
nation than for it to be dependent for
wool or woolens on foreign productions
and importations.
In case of war with naval power,
we might as we'll be without powder
and the ability to make it, as without Il
home supply of wool. We could not
then at any price import wool or wool
pns, and it would take ton years to raise
tiocks to supply as.