Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1888-10-12
ANOTHER TARIFF BILL.
The Senate Committee Make Their
Report.
How Wool Is Affected.

| In the senate the other day Mr.. Allison,
| from the committee on finance reported
| back the house tariff bill, with amendments
| in the shape OF "a substitute. IL was placed
| on the calendar and ordered to be printed
| According to the estimates made by the
committee the bill provides for total re
| ducton of about $75,000,CO0, made up APP
| proXimately as follows Sugar, S21, 15v, 00J;
| free list, 81, 800, 0O0; tobacco (nternal reve-
nue., S4, 500 00J; alcohol in the arts, 81 600
| 900; other reductions in customs, =, 100000
The ma ority and minority reports on the
substitute tariff bill have been presented 10
the senate also an additional report by Sen
ator Beck favoring the Mills bill Both re-
ports agree that reduction in the now eX-
cessive national revenue is needed, and that
is about the only thing on which they DO
agree. The majority report is defense OF
the protective system, maintaining that
some industries must be encouraged and
any reduction in tariff rates would work an
injury to the country; while the minority
report stOutly maintains that the burdens
of the people can only be lifted by reducing
import rates 10 "A revenue basis, and that
the higher 10 protective duties are laid the
worse ii is ior the producers. 1t further
holds that the senate bill throws additional
burdens with crushing weight on the labor
ers and farmers, and benefits only the
mOnopolists. To sustain this view the
report cites the fact that the rates on cotton
ties, now controlled by powerful trust,
and certain sizes Of iron used by the farm
ers are increased
Senator Beck says the substituted bill
| goes to the extreme of prote ction restric-
ton ana destruction, ana that the Mills bill
| is an eminently conservative measure, the
passage OF which VIII be to the benefit of
| the 90, ZOO, 900 people Of the United States
In regard To wool the majority report
says: Wool has been dutiable since 1916,
and through all the tariff mutations which
have taken pace since no suggestion has
| been made by any political party. up TO the
present administ ration, for the removal of
duties. The wool growers of the country
produce annually 800, OOO. 900 pounds Of wool
valued at Sl00,0JO,OOO They supply nine
tenths of the clothing wool used by Amcri-
can manufacturers, and they have raised
the United States TO the rirst rank amonr
the WOO producing countries of the word
Those who have, by their patient labor ana
! intelligent efforts, built up this great in
dustry, re ying for security upon the pro
lection of present revenue ARRANGEMENTS,
are certainly entitled to fair treatment
To this the minority report says:
Ii re lures from three to four pounds 70
make pound Of cloth so that from II TO rs
pounds of wooden clothing for tie family
viii be seen 10 be low average. This is
row taxed from % to nearly 90 per cent
The manufactures is not benefited, because
his finished product comes into competition
with the fore On product, made not only
from untaXed wool, but cheaper wool. If
the tax be taken off woods we will impois
! more woods, of course, anG in no other way
can our great factories prosper, because
their capacity is beyond our own wool pro
duction. When the factories are turning
out more product employees have steadier
work and better wages and indirectly, Of
course, the whole country Is benefited
Under the house bill the manufacturers,
with free wool, secure even higher com.
petitive advantage over the foreign than
under the present law or the substitute.
The manufacturers will export wooden
goods as we now export cotton and Gather,
and the demand for the wool will better
the wool market and encourage increased
production, while the average wool grower
himself will reap from cheapened cloth
ing more benefits than he ever did from
a tax on his product, which he must him
self pay.
The remainder of the reports are taken
up very largely with assertions and denials
of the usual congressional sort.