The Cambria freeman. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1867-1938, 1888-07-20
should WOOL be Taxed !

The question o: imposing higher tar
| iff taxes upon wool or Of repeating al
duties on that raw material Is now be
fore the House.
One party, with few exceptions, de-
mands, by amendment offered to tn
pending tariff bill, that the duties D
1867 shall be restored. which would i'm
pose q tax Of about los per cent. on tn
cheaper grades o. woolen goods.
The other party. with few exceptions
favors the repeal Of all tax upon WOO
and its free admission ir the interest o.
our wooden manufacturers and labor.
Which is right q? Which is wrong
We now tax ouT home consumers Of
wooden products 50 per cent. ostensibly
to protect our wooden industries and
give them our home market. III we
thereby obtained our home market il
might be wise to tax the workicgmen
IS cents of every dollar of the wages be
expends for wooden goods, but does this
excessive taxation give US our home
market
On the contrary. our highly protected
wooden manufacturers and our overtsx-
ed wooden consumers, give our home
wooden manufacturers and labor only
81 per cent. of our home markets. while
Europe comes in and supplies 4s per
cent. OF IL.
why ts this so?
The reason is plain as the unclouded
sun at MONDAY. The European manu-
facturer gets his wool and other raw ma
terisls free; the American manufacturer
is SO exorbitantly taxed for his raw ma
terisls that even with q 5S per cent. tax
imposed upon Consumers OF woolen
goods. to protect our capital and labor,
Europe can pay the high tax and COM
pete with Us in our home markets.
With free wool aid reduced taxes on
the necessaIies of life, our wooden man
ufacturers could reduce the cost of WOOL
ems to consumers not less than 20 per
cent they could double our product of
woo.ens and supply our whole home
market /; they could double the employ
ment of labor in the wooden industry.
and both capital and labor could get
better compensation with reduced taxes
upon consumers.
And what would the people gain by
Itr
We consume annually SO per head Of
wooden goods-that is 5000. .OO0, 600. We
now furnish from home mills and labor
about $500, 600. 900 and pay European
mills and labor for nearly $500. 600, 600.
A reduction of 20 per cent in woolens
would relieve the consumers OF woolens
annually o. the enormous sum OF S120.-
600, 900, and of that sum SO, ,000, 600
would be saved by the consumers Of
woolens in Pennsylvania alone. while in
the entire wool crop of :he State does
not exceed $3.50. 900.
Everybody consumes wooden goods,
and esp. cially our wOrkingmen. Many
of them wear only woolens the whole
year, and they are now taxed 5S per
cent.-and much more on some of the
cheaper ariicles-to protect our wooden
mills and labor, when the proposed pro-
lection defeats itself by taxes upon the
raw materials we must have.
Was ever such folly committed By an
honest government
But we must protect the labor of the
list champion. Pray, what labor Is
there in wool growing ? The labor IN
volved in the care Of flock of 500 sheep
is about one boy and dog, and there .he
protection of labor ends. Was ever
such a mockery of the protection of
labor offered to an intelligent people ?
Should wool be taxed Let the House
answer the question by its vote on the
tariff. The people will answer it in
thunder tones in favor OF free WOO! re-
duced prices to consumers enlarged
labor for our workingmen the entire
supply OF our home market and increas-
ed prosperity for both labor and capital.
philadelphia Times.