The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1884-05-29
The Duty on Wool.

In attempting to discuss the question
the tariff as it affects the wool trade,
ne Spectator of last week exhibits want
familiarity with the subject that is
,arcely excusable in journal which as
umes to direct public opinion. Indeed,
re may say that it IS absolutely inexcusable |
q this instance, for if the editor OF the |
pectator had carefully read the very ar
icle from the VIRGINIAN upon which he
omments, he would certainly have been
BILE to avoid the egregious blunders into
which he falls, and have saved himself
correction from half of the intelligent
armers of the country. If there has ever
,een clear case of the blind leading the
hind, our contemporary championship
If free.tradeism in behalf of its Demo-
ratio supporters furnishes noteworthy
example. Read what it says:
1t is very evident to the most common under
that the reduction in the price OF wool
s not due to any change OF the tariff, for there
las been no change OF the tarln. IL must, Jnere-
'ore, be attributed to. a different cause; The
Virgi7lian admits that there has been no chango
Of the tariff But its argument seems to be that,
rs there is a majority of Democrats In the lower
House of Congress. the reduction has been
caused by the fear that the duty on wool may
be reduced. But this argument is groundless,
unless the Republicans in the Senate vote for
IT, for they have majority IN tne senate, amt
and approval, and If the Repuplicans VIII vote
for lower duty. they will be doing exactly what
the Vh'ginian fears the. Democrats would DO,
and, therefore, even If q "high tariff protected
the farmer" there would be no reason why ne
should desert the Democratic party to go TO the
Republican.
So far from admitting that there had
been no change, we particularly pointed
out what the change was, and how it had
been brought about, giving succinct his
tory of the circumstances under which
reduction of the duty was effected and the
efforts made for restoration at the present
session of Congress. For the benefit OF
our neighbor we repeat in part what we
then said, so that it can have no possible
excuse hereafter for such statements as
its article contains:
The last Congress passed general law
involving reduction in custom rates and
large reductions of internal-revenue taxes,
amounting to $4O,O00,0O0 per annum.-
prior to that the duty, as fixed by the
tariff of 1867, had been 10 and IL cents per
pound on first and second class wool, with
an addition of 10 and ~ cents ad Calorens.
In the general tariff bill this ad vdlorem
duty, which amounted to about 5 and 6
cents in addition to the 10 and IL cents,
was abolished. When the bill came up
before the House serious objection was
made to this clause. 1t was found, however,
that no opportunity would be allowed for
voting on it as a separate proposition. The
alternative was presented to the House OF
passing the bill as it came from the Con-
ference Committee, as an entirety, or by
defeating it fail to secure the general re-
duction desired. Had the question of dis
turbing the duty on wool been presented
separate and distinct the reduction would
never have taken place, but it was thought
better to let it pass for the time being,
rather than allow the entire bill, which. as
stated, effected saving Of SAC, 900, 600 an
nually, to fail. Indeed, the Ways and Means
Committee instructed one of it's members
to offer as committee amendment the
wool duties of 1867, which would have
been presented and passed had the consid-
Grafton of this schedule ever been reached
in the House."
Before it's consideration was reached,
another Congress, the present one, had
been elected and the political complexion
of the House changed. Democracy once
again predominated, and when a bill was
offered in March last, to restore the duty
on wool to that fixed by the tariff of 1857
it failed of introduction by vote OF 1le
ayes to 1926 nays. Eighty-four Republicans
and thirty-four Democrats voted for the
bill, and one hundred and fourteen Demo
Gratis and twelve Republicans voted against
it.
Our argument, therefore, was not, as the
Spectator assumes, that 1.-THE reduction has
been caused by the fear that the duty on
wool man be reduced" 1t was based upon
facts that had transpired. Itwas not upon
an apprehension of danger, but upon a
realization of disaster. The Republicans
had promised a restoration .of the tariff OF
1867. and their vote upon this bill shows
that they were prepared to make good that
promise. BUT for the election OF Demo-
cratic Congress in 1899, the farmers would
not have been called upon to sacrifice the
product of their flocks this year. The bill
which the Democrats defeated. would have
passed the House, and without delay have
received the endorsation of a Republican
Senate and the approval of Republican
President.
In attempting to aeeoqnt for the re-
duction in the price of wool, the Spectator
says:
The price of an article is always. governed by
pIy is increased and the demand remains the
same the price will fall: If the supply remains
the same, and the demand Is diminished. the
price will likewise fall and IL the supply be in
creased and the demand diminished. then the
price will fall for double reason.
1t then proceeds to state that there has
been large increase in the supply of wool
and a large decrease in the demand, and
that it is to these causes, and not to the
reduction of custom duties that the low
price is due.
Everyone knows that there has been a
large increase in the supply of wool, but
there has been more than corresponding
increase in the demand, and this increased
demand has been met by importations.
For six months under the tariff duties OF
1867, the importation Of wool, wooden
goods and manufactures, amounted in
value to $27, 252, 179, or 1854, 504 1853 for the
year. For six months under the reduced
rates on wool, the value of importations
of the same character was $32, 491 1926, or
1854, 1888 .652 for the year. Does that look
as if the low price realized this spring for
wool is due to an overstocked market ?
The value of the entire wool clip of the
United States for 1883 was estimated at
800, OO0. 900. For the six months ending
Dec. 81, 'S3, the duty alone collected on
wool, wooden goods, &C., amounted to ST.
621 1925, or $35, 243, $50 for the year, whilst
the entire value of the importations as
stated above, was, in round numbers, $685.
100000. With our growers producing 300,
OO0, 600 worth of wool annually, and a de-
mand for say even $3.50, OOO,O 900 worth, is it
likely that prices will suddenly drop for
want of market? With over $40, 000, 900
more of foreign woods and woolens than we
had under the old law, and decrease of
ovor Ok nor cont i'm tlla priaa of the -1nu,ae-