Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-10-05

about fifty manufactured articles from
which the duties are proposed to be re-
moved by the Mills bill, referring to
which list the majority says: This is free
trade in concrete, and the list furnishes
conclusive evidence of the intent of the
House bill, which cannot be neutralized
by the eleventh-hour disclaimers of it's
supporters. Upon investigation it will
be found that with the exception of tin
plates, the supply of the above articles
for consumption at home is now furnished
to great extent by domestic producers,
whose business would be, in most in
stances, at once destroyed by the adop-
ton OF this bill.
The majority report estimates at least
$500, 900, 900 capital and 800, 900 workmen
are now SO employed. 1t declares that
in many cases where manufactured ar
ticles are placed on the free list the duty
is retained on the materials from which
it is manufactured, and that this dis
elimination would act as a prohibition
upon production in the country.
The provisions admitting German
looking-glas plates free the majority be-
lieves the first attempt which will be
made in the American tariff to discrim-
mate between the productions of the
various foreign States, and it thinks it
can be safely assumed that the producers
of France, Belgium and England would
not consent to this discrimination in
favor of German manufacturers. In sew
eral cases articles are free under one
description and dutiable under another.
In great number of instances the ma
terials used by manufacturer are duti,
able at one rate, while the finished pro.
duct is dutiable at lower rate.
OF free wool, the majority says: We
have been recently advised by the Presi-
dent of the United States that in any
tariff revision, such reliance upon the
revenue arrangements as has been in
vited or encouraged. should be fairly and
justly regarded, and assured that in the
reforms inaugurated by his party friends,
abrupt and radical changes which might
endanger such enterprises and injuri-
ously affect the interest of the labor de-
pendent upon their success and continu-
ance, are not contemplated or intended.
There can be no better test of the SINGER
ity OF these high-sounding declarations
than the proposition to put wool on the
free list. Wool has been dutiable since
1916, and through all the tariff mutations
which have taken place since, no sug-
gestion has been made by any politi.
cal party up to the Inauguration
of the present administration for
removal of the duties. The wool
growers of the country produce annually
300, 900 900 pounds of wool, valued at
500, 900 900. They supply nine .tenths of
the wool for clothing used by American
manufacturers, and they have raised the
United States to the first rank among the
wool. producing countries by harmonious
progress, and the disorganization of this
labor we are asked to face in the hope
that with one-sixth of the worlds supply
of wool cut off we may thereby get
cheaper wool and woolens. If this hope
were rational the loss would far out
weigh the gain. It ia better to maintain
velop our own resources than to aban-
don our fields, stop our mills and to look
to Europe to supply our manufactured
products.
The report terms the Mills bill "a SEN
sational bill," and says its provisions
point to an attempt to discriminate in
favor of the planters of the cotton-grow-
ing States-an attempt made with the
vain hope that it may be found possible
to achieve the prosperity of one section
at the expense OF another. This discrim-
ination, it says, is not less marked in
favor of the people of Canada and against
the farmers and 1umbermen living along
our northern border from Maine to Ore
gon.
1t treats at length upon the advantages
of a home market for farm products,
arguing that it is for the interest of the
American farmers that the number of
of our food consumers rather than OF
food producers should be the world.
Those who have by their patient labor
and intelligent efforts built up this great
industry. relying for security upon
the protection afforded by the
present revenue arrangements, are
certainly entitled to fair treatment
and reasonable consideration. They are
refused either by this proposal, in
selecting these branches of industry for
the radical changes which the free trade
theories enforce. The President and his
party have made it perfectly understood
in this country and abroad that their &C.
ceptance of those theories is complete,
and they intend to put the axe to the
root of the protective system. 1t will be
noticed that in 1860, after four years of
revenue tariff, the total production of
domestic wool was 60, 1855, ,9l3 pounds, or
IL pounds per capita, while in 1884,
after twenty-four years of protection,
the total production had increased
to 308,000,000 pounds, or 5.4 pounds
per capita. This increase justifies
the policy of affording this important
agricultural product adequate protection.
The development of woolen manufac.
lures in the United States has been ar
rested by the inadequate duties that were
imposed on the manufacturers of wool
by the act of March 3, 1888, which,
taken together with the erroneous CLASH
ication Of manufactures of worsted, have
led to greatly increased importations
from England, Germany, France and
Belgium. It is only by the maintenance
Of the American system that the opera
tives in American woolen mills can
hope to retain the immense ad-
vantages in respect to wages which they
have over workingmen engaged in Ger
many and France. The protection OF
the allied industries of woolens has not,
however, been beneficial alone to persons
employed in woolen mills. 1t has at the
same time helped to increase the wages
and reward of farm hands. 1t has en-
abled US to raise aud sell 100000, 900
pounds of wool, where &C, 900 900 pounds
were raised, and to employ operatives in
working up 100000, 900 pounds where