Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1888-01-15

In 1873 there was noavy Iali, ana
the course has been downward, with
a few exceptions, ever since. .o
The tariff of 1867 has, then, most
certainly failed to give the wool-grow-
er stable high price for his wool. In
fact, high prices for wool cannot be
said to have followed the enactment
of that tariff.
In looking at the question, "Why
protection does not protect the WOOL
grower" We must remember that the
causes of economic phenomena are
often very obscure. The simple fact
that one phenomena follows another
is not sufficient to establish the rela-
ton of cause and effect. We must be
| careful, therefore, not to attribute the
bad results which followed the passage
of the tariff of 1867 solely to that act.
There were doubtless other contribut-
ing causes. But we are upon very
safe ground when, ha Ting found that,
following the passage of that tariff,
sheep were slaughtered, the product
of wool decreased, and prices
of wool did not rise, we infer
from these facts that the en-
actment of the tariff of 1867 failed to
foster and encourage the growth of
wool, and failed to insure high prices
for wool. 1t was expressly designed
to encourage the wool-grower, and it
had no such effect.
The reason Of this failure is not far
to seek. 1t it perfectly clear that
wool-growers are dependent on wool
manufacturers for their market. If
wooden goods cannot be sold at
profit, wool must decline in price un-
til they can be. The absence of pros
perity among manufacturers is sure
indication of bad market for wool.
The fact of this dependence of wool
growers on wool-manufacturers cannot
be too strongly insisted upon, and it
must always be borne in mind in any
Intelligent discussion of the subject.
1t was through the wool manufacture
ers that the tariff of 1867 injured
the wool-growers. The country did
not produce enough wool for it's
wants. 1t did not produce the
kinds of wool required for certain
fabrics, and suddenly the cost to the
manufacturer of all imported woods
was largely advanced. The mills
could not run without these imported
woods. Those mills which had used q
mixture of domestic and foreign
woods were forced either to buy their
domestic wool for less or advance the
cost of their fabrics. A struggle was
thus begun by manufacturers to put
down the prices Of wool and put up
the price of goods, and such strug-
gle was entirely inconsistent with
prosperity. The wool-growers neces-
saMly had bad market.
A grave error was also committed
| by the trainers of the tariff of 1867
when they assumed that the price of
goods could be advanced by the
makers to any desirable point. Wool
was to be advanced and goods were
to be put at a corresponding price.
But this can never be done. Price
cannot be fixed arbitrarily. The abil
ity of the consumer to buy is the final
governing fact. No legislation can
affect this, and if the price is fixed
above this ability no sales can be
made. Further, at a certain price a
certain quantity of an article can be
sold. At lower price it comes within
the ability of new set of customers
and more can be sold. If the price
| is raj the consumption is at once
diminished. No juggling with the
tariff can evade this principle. By
increasing the cost of the imported
raw material the tariff could and did
increase the cost Of goods, but it could
not make consumers buy them.
Manufacturers had to work under
most unfavorable circumstances, and
the wool market was necessarily de-
pressed.
1t may be asked why, if these
things are so, public attention has
not been called to the matter and a
remedy applied? Why have not the
facts been pointed out? The truth is,
the facts have been pointed out over
and over again, but they have not
been examined by the people. "Pro-
lection to American labor has been
considered a sufficient answer. The
fact was at the time patent to any OBJ
:, server, that for years following the
passage of the Tariff Act of 1867 both
wool-manufacturing and wool grow
ing were in q far from prosperous con-
dition. During this period ii
was very common circum.
stance for the agent or COM
mission merchant to find that he
had over-advanced to the manu-
facturer. Then followed mortgage
on the mill property as security for
the overdrafts. The almost invariable
result of this was that the mortgage
was forcclosed, and the commission
; merchant became the owner of the
factory. In this way A. L. Stewart
acquired mill after mill. until he be.
came one of largest wool manufactu-
rers in the country. But even his
great business ability.failed to make
his factories pay, and he is commonly
believed to have lost heavily by his
wooden mills. At his death his es-
tate was burdened with large num-
Der Of these non-paying properties.
The business of wool manufacturing
in the years following the enactment
Of the tariff of 1867 was universally
conceded to be very difficult bust
ness. Success could only be at
tanned by great skill in producing
goods exactly suited to the wants OF
the market, and by great economy in
all the operations of the mill. These
conditions continue to exist, though
they have been somewhat ameliorated
by the principle of the survival of the
fittest.
There is another part of this ques-
ton which is imperfectly understood
that is the persistent importation
both of raw wool and of manufactured
goods. in spite of the high tariff. Ii
the following table will be found the
values of the imports Of wool and O
wooden goods, beginning in 1865, tn,
year after the war, and ending with
1884:
IGAD?:l9D &C = = -+c.lo G 90. n @ c
5@5a@S9saSS2
sEEEGES +GnSE9 SGSt :