The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1884-04-10
TIE DUrY ON WOOL.
DIseussaOn Of the Question IN the House
Yesterday.


Mckinley, of Ohio, expressed approval
Of the measure and an earnest desire that |
it should be enacted q law. Inc last |
house had no opportunity TO vote on the |
wool measure as an independent propo-
sition. No sooner had the act last !
winter gone into operation than Repub- |
licans everywhere and many Democrats
in Ohio came to recognize the injustice |
OF reducing the duty. He appealed TO
the gentlemen on the other side TO sup
port this measure, and he did so more
boldly because their brethren in
Ohio last tall had promised the
people that congress would restore
the wool duty of the present session.
Henley, of California, supported the
motion, and said In the locality where
he lived the restoration OF the duty OF
1857 was regarded as q matter of simple,
pure and unmitlgated justice.
Wilkins, of Ohio, said it was not Of
ten the farmers came asking legisla-
tioD, and when they did, congress- should
give them respectful hearing.
Morrison, OF Illinois. called attention
to the TACT that when the tariff commls-
sion ended their eight months exercises
they fixed the duty on wool as 1t was i n
the law to-day. It's report was approved
by this gentleman on. the 9TH
er side and their protective friends, few
in number, on his. by the senate. These
gentlemen would undo their work and
restore the duty to the rate at which il
stood before tbs passage of the tariff bill.
What estimate was to be made OF their
professions he left TO the country to say.
Whatever might be the different views
on the question of protective bouDtles,
the duty on wool could not be justly and
rightly considered apart from the duty.
on WOODEN goods, into which it entered
as large part OF manufacture. A bill
had been reported TO the house on
the general subject of tariff. as we'll as
on rates on wool and wooden goods. He
would ask the house on Tuesday week to
take up that bill and consider the wool
question.
Among others Hurd, of Ohio. said he
opposed this motion because it pro
posed TO restore the duty on wool and
thereby increase Its price, thus increas-
ing the price OF WOODEN goods, which
was an Indispensable article OF con-
sumption, shelter to the houseless, Gov
ering to the shiverIng end fuel when the
light of the fire was extinguished. The
! condition of the laborer would be mIser-
able without protection on wooden cloth
ing. This had been q winter of unex-
ampled severity. More than half mil
lion of men were out of employment.
To pass this bill would be an unforgiv-
able wrong TO millions. 1t was not an
suspicious time to make clothing dearer
TO the poor. If bounties were needed
for industry, in Gods name take them
out of the OVERLOOKING treasury, not out
of the suffering poor. [Applause. What
effect would Il have on the manufacture
ing INTEREST," That interest everywhere
was IN a state of depression. In the
.1nNz hi =
propose to add to their burdens by in
creasing the price OF raw materials. One
of the chief causes of the present de-
preston was the high price of foreign
| wool. To-day, even as the law stood, the
price of wool to American manufactuI-
ers was nearly 60 per cent higher than
| 1t was ST the port of shipment. In Ameri-
can mills 800, 000, 900 pounds were used In
1880. OF this, $4,000, 600 pounds were
| imported. There was enough power in
the mills TO produce nearly twice as
much as they did. The high duty pre-
vented the manufacturer from getting
the wool required in order to make up
for the deficiency il the home produc-
ton, and by this Verv tariff he was Kept
out from the markets of the world
England sent abroad $12,0O0,OO0 worth
of wooden goods annually. America
sent abroad scarcely 800, 900 worth.
Pass this bill and increase the price Of
foreign wool, and the house would add
to the embarrassment of every
wool manufacturer, compel 8 further
reduction of wages and lock still more
tightly against him the markets of the
| world. This was attempted To be justi-
ned on the ground that the American
farmer would get price for his wool.
THIS he denied. What was the market
forp For menu No man bought wool
and brought to his own home aRd made
his own clothes. 1t was the American
manufacturer who created the market
and Just as he prospered or was de.
pressed was the price of wool high OIL
low. (Applause.) He charged that the
low price of American wool was largely
attributable to the high price of forei ga
wool. There were three grades of WOO
In the market, supeEfine, intermediate
! and carpet. OF these Americans did
not produce superflne or carpet woods
and therefore no duty on them could
be OF any benefit to any farmer. As tC
the inter mediate grade, this was the sit
| uation; The woods of foreign coun-
, tries had q texture and fibre which
American wool did not possess, anG
American manufactures needed then
in order to mix with American
wool. Set foreign wool free or re
duce the duty and foreign WOO
, would be imported, and that woulC
make greater demand for American
wool. Foreign wool did not come
/ into competition with American
: wool, but was supplemented &
farmers got five cents per pound NOR
than they did during the period Of higl
3 protective tariff. In England when tn
proposition was made to take the dut
off of wool it was antagoniZed by th
wool growers, but the result had bee
i that the price of wool had steadily ao
T vanced. He believed that if wool wer
|. put on the free list to-day, with q CORES
ponding reduction in the duty on woole
goods tue result would be q large in
crease IN the number of manufactoriei
C a large increase in the number of Opert
q tives employed, at least 10 per cent in
: crease in the price paid the farmer an
q reduction of 90 per cent to Gu!
" toners.
= Mr.. Converse eald the pending que
n ton was not one as to whether the Il
boring people should be compelled I
buy higher priced clothing. He wouI
have liked il if his colleague had show
y bv facts and figures that the price q
O clothing was cheaper now than it ha
n been prior to the passage of the tart
bill. Statistics did not sustain the gen
. tleman's rhetoric. The question Wt
d whether this great industry should /
. kept IN the hands of American either
among foreign nations. Applause
, The wool industry was the lar
n est single industry IN the Unite
States. There were 1000, 72S fiocks
sheep In the country, and the annTi
product amounted 70 $150,O00,O0O.
furnished employment to more the
100000 men. Not women and CHI
4 dren, bat strong men. What was Il
effect of the gentlemsn's proposition
The gentleman quoted England as a
g example. Did not the gentleman knoI
b did not every one know, that AmericS
free trade meant British protection
CApplsuse. principally ON the Republics
10 side.) Did not everybody know tn
le when the tariff on wool was cut down
much money was put into the POCKETS
British sheep-raisers in Australian h
he colleague was entirely mistaken VIII
10 he talked about fibre wool. Finer NIB
4 was produced in Australia, but superi
and more elastic nbre could be produc
within the states OF Pennsylvania, OH
d. West Virginia. Michigan and Vermol
NJ The wooden farmers had sent more ne
. tions TO congress than had been sent
- all others represented, and that If We
was Bot restored the industry must ne
an essaTily 60 to destruction, for the ress
that IN Australia, where they hsd pere
NAL pastures, = hundred square mi
ng could be rented for 800 per year. T
ke question was not Wheth
there should be cheap wool and che
clothing, but whether the industry shor
Is be preserved for our own people. II
cd few years, if the tariff could be kept
an what 1t was in 1867, the United Sta
would be able to control its own mark
y without tariff, but in the present G
lse dition OF thinge, our wool men must
driven necessarily from the market.
-. the past year they had lost over Sl,5C
GOO on account of the reduction In du
Tor It did not affect the price of clofhir
TO The money was taken out of the nnck