Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1888-08-22
Should W0Ol be Taxed.

The reasons why wool was placed on The
free list have been admirably condensed py
the democratic majority of the Ways and
Means Committee, in their report to the
House of Representatives
"We say to the manufacturer we have
put wool on the free list to enable him TO
obtain foreign markets and successfully
compete with the foreign manufacturer.
We say to the laborer in the factory we put
wool on tho free list so that it may be i'm
ported and he may be employed to make
the goods that are now made by foreign Ia
Dor and imported into the United States:
We say to the consumer we have put wool
on the free list that he may have woolen
goods cheaper. We say to the domestic
wool grower we put wool on the free lsG TO
enable the manufacturer to import 1orelgn
wool to mix with his own and thus enlarge
his market and quicken the demand for the
consumption of his wool while it Hghtens
the burdens of the taxpayer. The duty on
wool now prevents nearly all the better
classes of wool from coming into the coun-
try, when the domestic product can only
supply about one.half of the amount re-
quired for home consumption.
1t is to the domestic wool-growers of the
country that the argument of the republi-
cans is chiefly addressed, hoping to per-
suade them that their financial interests are
protected" and sustained by tariff on
wool. Let us see
From 1857 to 1867, as everybody can as
certain by reference to the facts of history,
wool was practically on the free list. Under
this policy, and during this period wool
reached its maximum price, commanding
at Boston, the controlling wool market of
the United States, yearly average of nev-
er less than Al cents per lb. during the de-
cade, and reaching as high as rs cents. But
1867, when wool commanded 81 cts, Con-
gress undertook to ''protect" the wool
grower and proceeded to impose tax of
60 per cent upon raw wool. What was the
resultp Wool fell in price the very next
year to AZ cents, and continued steadily to
decline, with some fluctuations until 1923
when it reached the lowest price in forty
years,-25 cents. In 1888 Congress reduced
the tariff from 1 to cents per lb, and wool
has since slightly improved in price. Thus
the frozen. facts inevitably lead to the con.
viction that tariff on wool only fails to
protect the wool-grower, i.e., insure to him
good prices for his wool, but under this
regime the wool industry has positively lam
guished and prices have steadily dimin-
ished.
why is this Inc answer may De IOunQ
in the condition which confronts US to-day.
1t may be generally supposed that under
the enormously high tariff, our home manu-
facturers produce the great bulk of woolen
goods annually consumed in this country,
but in fact they do not. With tax of 80
per cent. ON woolens, we are still able to
manufacture only fifty tUO per cent of the
consumption in this country, because the
foreign manufacturer has free raw material
and ours are so highly taxed that they can
not compete with Europe. It will be seen
at once that our domestic wool growers sup
ply barely one-half of the raw material used
in the woolens we consume. Our manu-
facturers cannot compete with goods of
foreign manufacture because the tariff pre-
vents their getting certain grades of foreign
wool for the necessary admixture. If that
be granted them, then they can supply the
entire home market, instead of about one
balf as at present, the domestic wool-grow-
er will find the market for his raw material
very nearly doubled, and the price cores
pondingly advanced.
If cur home sheep-growers will thought
fully investigate this subject, instead of
passiveiy allowing themselves to be enticed
into the republican camp by the seductive
sound of the word "protectiop," they will
conclude that the delusion of taxed wool
has lasted long enough.-Monroe county
(W. Va.,) Watchnaon.