The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1888-04-11

poor mans blanket . which the majority
has made burning issue for so many
years, is made TO bear the same rate oi
duty as the rich mans
THE FREE Lists MAKE-rP.
More than third OF the free list is
made up from the products of the farm,
the forest and the mine; from product:
which are now dutiahle at the minimum
ranging from to % per cent. and even
this slight protection, so essential, is to be
taken from the farmers, the lumbernan
and the quarryman. The American far
mer will appreciate the vicious character
of the bin as applied to him, when he is
apprised of the fact that while the prod
ucts of the land and labor are shut ont
from Canada by pre- tectiye tariff i'm
posed by the Canadian Government, the
Canadian farmer can send many of his
products here without the payment of
duty under the proposed bill. How long
viii the rate Of agricultural wages be con-
tinued in the United States under such
legislation? What sort of reciprocity is
this2 This will be direct benefit TO the
Canadian farmer, and most serious
blow to the American The whole bill
has that tendency, and seems to be su5-
ject 10 the criticism that it was framed to
benefit other countries rather than our
own.
Nowhere in the bill is the ultimate
purpose Of It's authors more manifest
than ifs treatment of wool II places
this product upon the free list, and ex-
poses our flOcks and aeeces to merciless
competition from abroad In this respect
the bill is but the echo of the Presidents
message, and gives emphasis to the set
! tied purposee of the majority to break
down one of the most valuable industries
of the country. II is a public proelama-
ton that the American policy of protec-
/ ton, 50 long adhered to and productive
I of
/ UNPRECEDENTED PROSPERITY
in every branch Of industry, be aban
doned. Why have the majority put wool
on the free list Let them make their
own answer. We quote from the report
+" We say to the manufacturer we have
/ put wool on the free list to enable him to
obtain foreign woods cheaper, make his
goods cheaper, and send them into for
eign markets and successfully compete
with the foreign manufacturer"
First, the purpose is to bring down the
priee Of wool. If this should be the re-
suit, We inquire at whose expense and
loss? 1t must be at the expense Of the
American grower, and to his loss who, at
present prices and with the present duty,
IS being forced ont Of the business by
ruinous foreign competition. The injury
by the confession Of the majority, will
fall upon the American woolgrower He
is TO be the first victim. He can find no
profitable foreign market, be is unable to
hold his own, and ii is absurd to talk
about enlarging the market for his prod
uct at home with the wool of the foreign
er crowdine our shores and Inspected by
custom house duties. There were lI4.-
O00,000 pounds of wool imported To this
country The last fiscal year, and oar do
mestie product, a. result. even with
duty Of 10 cents pound on the higher
grades, was diminished TO 265 .0000O0
pounds The bill viii greatly increase
imPortations Of the foreign product, and
diminish if not wholly destroy our own
production.
Every nation, ought, If possible, to
produce its clothing. as well as its food
This nation ean do both, if the majority
will let it alone. Il should be borne in
mind that our wool producers
CANNOT COMPETE
with countries where no winter feeding
and but little summer attention is requir-
ed, and where labor is so cheap, unless
their industry has just and adequate pro-
lection Is labor in manufacturing more
deserving Of the considerate concern of
Congress than labor engaged in the field
OF agriculture? Both are useful and
equally honorable. and alike merit the
thoughtful consideration of those charged
with making laws.
The majority report asserts that We
must produce our woolen goods at lower
cost and be able to undersell the foreign
product. And after this, how is the
lower cost to be secured? First, by fleec-
ing the woolgrower, and next by reduc-
ing the labor cost in the manufacture.
How are we to undersell the product
BY making the manufacturing cost of
our goods less than theirs. In other
words, by cutting down the wages of our
skilled and unskiiled labor, not to the
foreign standard only, but below it, for
the product must cost us less if we I'M
dersell our competitors. The American
farmer will not quietly submit to This in
justice. The American workman will
indignantly repeI this effort TO degrade
his labor.
The majority gravely inquire in the re-
port: If Congress grants the request
of the wool growers, what are the people
to do for WOODEN clothing?" We beg to
suggest that the people of the country
wore wooden clothes during the existence
of the tariff Of 1867, and the tariff pro-
posed by the wool conference is substan-
italy that tariff, and the people were
NEVER BETTER CLOTHED,
and never better able to buy them. 1t 1
would be instructive to the majority to
compare the prices of WOODEN clothing in
this country during the period from 1877 /
TO 1860, under the low tariff then pre- I
vailing, with the prices now prevailing,
and they would be proited also by /
comparison of the price of wages then I
prevailing with those now maintained. .
Their investigations would disclose the /
wretched condition of labor in the for 1
Ine- period, the starving prices then re- 1
ceivei, and the liability of thousands of |
worthy worksnen TO get work at any /
price Clothes at any price were the 1
dearest. If the laboring men could have
been heard by the committee. they 1
woaid have told a story of misery during /
the free trade era which might have de- /
TERED the .na,nrity even from irapyuraf-