Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-10-05
FREE WOOL. AND LABOR INTERESTS.


declarations than the proposition to
put wool on the free list. Wool
has been duitable since 1876, and
through all the tariff mutations which
have since taken place no suggestion has
been made by any political party, up to the
Inauguration of the present Administra-
ton, for the removal of those duties. The
wool-growers of the country produce an
nually 300,000000 pounds of wool, valued
at S100, 100000. They supply nine-tenths of
the clothing wool used by American man.
ufacturers, and they have raised the United
States to the first rank among wool-pro-
duclng countries. This disorganization of
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 ra-
honal, the loss would far outweigh the
gain. 1t is better to maintain the wages of
our workingmen and to develop our own
resources than to abandon our fields, stop
our mills, and to look to Europe for the
supply of our manufactured products
SENSATIONAL" MEASURE.
The majority term the Mills bill "sen-
satlonal bill, and say that its provisions
point to an attempt to discriminate in favor
OF the planters of the cotton growing States
AN attempt made with the vain hope that
1t may be found possible to achieve the
permanent prosperity of one section at the
expense of another. "This discrimina-
ton" they say, is not less marked in fa-
vor of the people of Canada and against
the farmers and lumbermen living along
our northern border from Maine to
Oregon"
The majority report treats at length
upon the advantages of home
market for farm products, arguing
that it is for the highest interests of the
American farmer that the number of our
food consumers, rather than of food pro-
ducers should be increased Those who
have by their patient labor and intelligent
efforts built up this great industry, relying
for their security upon the protection of
the present revenue arrangements, are GER
tainly entitled to fair treatment and rea-
sonable consideration. They are refused
either by this proposal. In selecting these
branches of industry for the radical changes
which free trade theories enforce, the Presi-
dent and his party have made it perfectly
understood in this country and abroad that
their acceptance of these theories is COM
plete, and that they intend to
PUT THE AK To THE ROOT OF THE PRO-
TECTIVE SYSTEM.
1t will be noticed that in 1860, after four.
teen years of revenue tariff, the total pro-
duction of domestic wool was &C. .265 913
pounds, or II pounds per capita, while in
1884, after tWenty-fours years of protection,
the total production had increased to 30S,-
600, 900 pounds, or "a pounds per capita.
This increase justifies the policy of afford
ing this important agricultural product
adequate protection. The development of
woolen manufacturers in the United States
has been arrested by the inadequate duties
that were imposed upon the manufact-
urers of wool by the Act of March 3, 1888,
which, taken together with the erroneous
classification, the manufactures of worsted
have led to greatly increased importations
from England, Germany, France and Bel
GUM. 1t is only by the maintenance of
the American system that operatives in
American woolen mills can hope to retain
the immense advantages, in respect to
wages, which they have over workingmen
engaged in Germany and France.
The protection to the allied industries of
woolens has not, however, been beneficial
alone to persons employed in wooden mills.
1t has at the same time helped to increase
the
WAGES AND REWARD THE FARM HANDS.
1t has enabled us to raise and sell 800.
000,000 pounds of wool where 6O,00O, 900
pounds were raised, and to employ opera
tives in working up 100000, 900 pounds
where bat S6,000000 pounds were manu-
factured. Coincident with this constant
advancein wages and enlarged employment,
there has been great reduction in the cost
of woolen goods to American consumers.
Free trade in wool and bare revenue
duty for woolens would compel the farmers
to raise other crops of which the supply is
already greater than the demand, and it
would close the factories, in which many
millions capital are invested rob an army
of operatives of employment, and force
down the wages of all the others.
1t is true, it says, that the decline in the
prices ofagricultural products has been very
great, but the value of these, when meas
ured by the value of the farm utensils or
other necessities of the farmers life, is
much greater now than in any of the years
preceding 1860. After months spent in
violent attacks upon the protective system,
and when fortunately the people of the
country have become thoroughly aroused
to the impending danger, the friends of the
House bill suddenly discovered that it is
not free trade measure, and that it should
not injuriously affect the vital interests of
any OF the large number of persons en-
ployed in American industries. In place of
this it is said that the bill proposes an av-
erage reduction of only 81 80 on every 500
of dutiable merchandise imported. 1t is
assumed that the retention of an average
rate of 42.7S per cent. on dutiable merchan-
disc is conclusive evidence that the bill has
no free trade tendencies.
AN 1RREpREssIBLE CONFLICT.
The majority defines a free tr ade country
as one which does not impose protective
duties upon importation, and says: ga
careful comparison of the premises of the
House bill now under consideration, with
the detailed suggestions contained in the
resolutions, will show with what fidelity
the programme of the Free Trade Confer
ence held in Chicago in 1885 has been fol-
lowed in every essential particular The con-
troversy, however, between the opponents
and friends of the bill under consideration
Is not one over names or phrases. 1t is
contest between those who support and
those who oppose the American system of
defensive duties, and this conflict is as ire
pressible as that which was waged between
the respective friends of freedom and
slavery"
The majority deny the charge that war
tariff is being maintained in time of pro-
found peace, and express the opinion that
the sections of the House bill intended to
modify the existing laws relating to the tax
on distilled spirits are certain to open a
wide door for fraud in the collection of
taxes on distilled spirits.
In conclusion, the report says:
The excessive duty of from to 81 cents
per pound now imposed upon sugar adds
considerable sum to the daily cost of living
of every family in the United States, where
in most cases the cost of sugar is greater
than the cost of bread The high rate of
duty which has been levied upon this i'm
portant article of food have not success
fully developed the sugar-producing indus
try of the United States. The great natural
advantages which the producers of cane
sugar in tropical islands have over those of
the United States preclude domestic compe-
tition upon equal terms. If it were not for
the fact that the parties interested in the
production of sugar from sorghum or beets
are confident of the rapid development of
these industries in the United States, the
committee would recommend still greater
reduction in the rate of duty upon sugar.
IS the advantages of that reduction would
be felt throughout larger area than any
other which could be made in our tariff
schedules.
Your committee have considered num-
ara .1..r L