New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-04-13

winter. But If such investigation Is dcsiraDle'
why should ii not proceed side by side with the
operation of law providing means Tor arbitrh-
ton when II il wanted There would be no
clashing of powers The House bill, while by
no means broad or fully mntured measure.
would certainly do much to obtain rccoe"nion
from employers and employees f"' 'he pr'he'P'c
That any strike withe"o previous attempts III
arbitration il contrary to Justice and not III
accnr,aance with the suggestions III our laws.
REVOLU7ION IN WOOL MANUFACTURE.
For the first time in twenty years, the WOOL
duties are to be thoroughly discussed. since
the adoption of the wool tariff in 1867, which
was the carefully matuIed fruit OF many con-
ferences and of several onventions, the subject
has been so little considered that much public
ignorance and many misapprehensions prevail
about 1t. Thus there are now found Journalists
and congressman who affirm, as Others did in
1866, that removal of duties on wool is abso-
| lutely necessary to secure decent price Tor
American wool to the growers. At the same
time there are found some manufacturers who
insist, as others did in 1866, that the manu-
facture cannot grow and prosper without cheap
raw material TO the dullest mind these two
claims are irreconcilably conflicting. Yet both
find place in the report of the majority OF the
Committee on Ways and Means in support OF
! the pending bill. If removal OF the duty VIII
make wool cheaper for the manufacturer, now
can it secure a better price for the grower Ii
it will secure to the wool grower better price
| for his product how can it benefit the manu-
facturer by giving him cheaper raw materials
| The free traders of twenty years ago an
swered, then with some force, that there was
needed in the production of the kind of goods
at that time made in this country a large adj
mixture of foreign wool. They showed that
| third of the wool then consumed was imported,
! and claimed that the home manufacture could
not succeed gainst foreign competition without
a free choice of cheap foreign woods. 1ney
| said that, when enabled to compete, the manu-
! facture used up a great quantity OF domestic
wool. and so made a good demand and
better price. but when unable to compete the
manufacture could not use either foreign or
domestic wool, and SO the demand for home
wool slackened and its price declined. The
| Bourbon economists of the Democratic school,
who learn nothing and forget nothing, are re-
peating this reasoning to-day, Ignorant OF the
| complete revolution in the woollen lnanulact-
ure which twenty years have brought.
Whether the argument had force in 1866 or
not, it has none now. The kind of cloth then
chiefly worn, as everybody knows has gone
| entirely out of use. Public tastes have altered
on both sides of the water, and the manuiact-
ure has changed its character i'll obedience to
the change of taste Different goods are now
required to satisfy the public demand, and
different materials to produce the required
goods. The tariff which free traders insisted
would PROSTATE both grower and manufacturer
has resulted in an increase of more than 100
per cent, both in the production and the con-
sumption of wool, and free trade economists
are now forced to answer that this growth has
been due to the great revolution in the kind
of goods required and in the modes of manu-
facture This is partly true, but 1t does not
alter the fact that the public taste to-day re-
ouires goods which are Made ain Ost exclusively
of American WOOL Moreover, the free traders
have published only this year an elaborate
argument against the present tariff by bank
rupt dealerin which it is admitted that woolen
| goods are as cheap in this country, quality con-
| sidcred, as the goods produced III Germany
| 70 produce the goods made i'll 1866 there were
| consumed about 1j5, OOO, 600 pounds domestic
and 7G. 500, 900 pounds imported wool. Yet
pclled the people to use wool instead of cotton
for many articles of wear. 1t has been esti-
mated that fully a third Of the consumption of
wool in 1866 was in uses for which cotton had
been employed before the war. and i'll normal
state of the markets always will be employed
| At that time about One-thlrd OF the WOOL USED
was foreign and twO-thirds American. But
last year the manufacture used about
800 100000 pounds domestic and only
6S 900 900 pounds foreign WOOL over 50 per
cent being of home production. The change
in proportion required for the production OF
articles ordinarily and naturally made of wool
has been much greater still.
| Events have proved that the reasoning of
| free traders in 1856 was unsound. But now
the kinds of goods chiefly used in this country
are made here as cheapy they are made in
aov other country and are best made with little
or no admxture of foreign wool. OF the wool
imported, 81 100000 pounds is for use in the
Garnet manufacture, and only 100000
pounds of all other classes. In only a small
mart of the other manufacture would the of
| foreign wool be an advantage. To use more
than the sixth of foreign wool, in place OF any
considerable part of the fivc-slxths domestic
wool now used, would meal ruinous prices for
the growers, as they well know. On the other
hand, if there we're any truth in the claim that
the removal of the duty would enhance the
value of 800, DC, 300 pounds domestic wool
now consumed, it would inevitably increase the
cost of nearly all goods to consumers far more
than the cost could be reduced by reduction in
the price of the one-sixth foreign wool now
used. A very few manufacturers would be
benefited, at the expense of the rest of the
country, by the proposed change. But nearly
all woolen manufacturers have united in an
earnest protest against the threatened change
OF tariff, and they understand the present con-