Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1888-08-09

]
| CHEAP CLOTHING.
The friends of cheap raw materials
profess to have deep interest in poor
people. and to be very anxious that they
shall have cheap clothing. They seem
TO forget that cheap wool is only one,
and a very small, factor in the cost of
clothing or in the cost of blankets or in
the cost of any kind of wooden goods. 4
suit of clothes will contain from 3 to )
pounds of wool, and many of the ordi-
nary suits contain much less. At 10
cents per pound the duty on wool could
only increase the cost of an ordinary
suit of clothes from 80 to so cents. The
cost of pair of 5-pound blankets could
only be increased 80 cents. But expert
ence proves that while the wool costs a
trifle more, clothing has grown cheaper
and better as the wool industry has been
more and more developed in our midst.
Woolen goods were never so cheap as
they are now. No people in the world
are as well clothed as the people of the
United States. What we pay for wool
in excess of the price of wool in other
countries is more than made up by the
superior quality of our wool, by the SUI
perior quality of our goods, and in saw
! ings made in other directions.
The consumer and producer are brought
face to face, agents and middle men are
dispensed with, the cost of making is
| diminished, the use of ShOddy and poor
materials is prevented, and no fact is
better established than the one l have
! Just stated, that clothing has grown
cheaper and better as we have increased
our production and manufacture of wool.
If gentlemen on the other side want
| to give to the masses of the people
cheaper clothing, why do they not pass
the Breckenridge resolution, which was
introduced on the 10Th day of January
last, compelling the Secretary of the
Treasury to reverse his unjust ruling that
worsted goods worn by the rich, made
of the finest and best wool in the world,
can come in at less duty than poor
mans blanket, or the day labOrers'
clothing? If they want to give cheaper
clothing to the laboring people, why do
they not reverse the ruling Of the Secre-
tary of the Treasury that permits, as l
shall hereafter show, the poor mans
wool to be taxed more than three times
as much as the finer qualities of comb
ing wool worn only by the wealthier
classes?
The persistent refusal of the present
Secretary of the Treasury to require i'm
porters to pay the same duty on combed
wool that is paid on carded wool makes
the poor man, who wears cheap suit of
clothes, pay more than three times as
much duty as is paid by the rich man
who wears fine worsted suit, made of
the finest combed wool. This is dis
elimination against the poor man as
well as discrimination against the wool
grower; and yet the present Secretary of
the Treasury has persisted in this ruling
in the face of repeated argument and ur-
gent solicitation.
If the consumer complains that he is
taxed to the extent of the duty on wool,
which is about 10 cents pound, he
should be reminded that the destruction
of the American industry will not only
diminish the wool of the world, which
would increase the price by lessening the
product, but it would place the wool
in the hands of London syQdicateS and
enable them to make the price of wool |
higher than it has been in this country |
within the last ten or twenty years.
We would then be entirely dependent |
on foreigners for our wool and for our
clothes, and as soon as the American in
dustry would go down the price of wool |
and clothing would as certainly go up.
This is the way it always has been and
it will be so again. And it should be
remembered that the same amount of
labor will buy more clothing in this
country than in any other part of the
world. Besides, no American should
want cheap clothing at the expense of
the independence of his country. I'M
agine the suffering of our people in case
we should be involved in war, by having
our wool supply cut off, in case we de-
pend on foreign countries for our wool
James G. Blaine, from whom our friends |
on the other side quote occasionally,
said:
To break down wool growing and be dependent |
on foreign countries for the blankets under which |
We sleep, and coats that cover our backs, Is not
wise policy for the National Government to en-
force.
Other statesmen no less distinguished
have said the same.
THE EXTENT OF THE WRECK.
1t seems incredible to me that any
party can seriously contemplate such
destruction as is embraced in this scheme
to put wool on the free list. When the
idea of free raw materials was first pre-
sented to Congress it embraced free coal,
free iron ore, and other materials that
this bill leaves on the dutiable list. This
strange anomaly has not been explained.
1t is supposed to be based on political
reason. When this bill was first printed
and placed on the Calendar it had some
things on the free list that have since
been restored to the dutiable list. This
has not been explained. 1t is supposed
that this had to be done to get votes
enough to pass the bill. Whether this
is d proper method of buying votes is
somewhat questionable, but it has been
done. The amendments agreed upon
in the midnight caucus, before any ar
guments had been made and before any
explanations had been given, have been
sustained by the automatic machine, and
all else has been thrown aside. The
vote that now awaits us, like all the 9TH
ers, is recorded in the archives of King
Caucus, and when this discussion closes
the conductor will pull the rope, the bell
will ring, and the train will move ahead
on the usual track. The House is en-
tirely innocent of any virtue or vice
which this bill contains or shall contain
when it is signed by the Speaker.
But want to call the attention of the
House to the extent of the disaster
which this bill will entail upon the coun-
try if it ever becomes a law. 1t will
destroy an industry in which two
millions of people are employed, count