The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-01-22

cloth imported each year is over $50.
600 900; the value of our entire wool
clip is less than $lO0, 900 600. We import
this large amount of wool because we
have to, and would not import much
more if the tariff were removed. The
main difference then would be that the
American manufacturer would get the
profit of working these woods. which
the foreign manufacturer now receives.
But tn. most shameful part OF this
history is that the tax on these i'm
ported goods, and especially in the case
of cloths. falls mainly on the middle
poorer classes. las this is the poor
mans government, tits natural enough
that the poor man is taxed heaviest.
On his clothing he still pays nearly
double the rate of the rich man." Low
priced goods, as cloth at rs cents yard,
pay a duty Of S71l cents, or l16 per
cent; while fine goods, made of the
pure wool of the finest texture, at - q
yard, pay duty of 81 Al. or 70% per
cent.
The present wool tariff dates from
1867, when the woolen manufacturers
held convention at Syracuse; but the
wool growers were there also. The
manufacturers wanted reduction, the
growers wanted anincrease, OF the duty
on wool. Such difference seemed to
admit of no compromise. However, an
adjustment satisfactory to both was
made by increasing the duties both on
wool and woolens, each party throwing
the other sop in the form OF tariff
The tariff there concocted was enacted
into law in 1867. 1t consisted of a
minute classification OF woods, and a
complicated graduated rate, which has
torm,nted the woo industry ever
since Under the belief that the wo' lien
manufacturers we're shielded from
foreiEn competition, mills were started
by inexperienced persons in improper
places, and the supply OF cloth, all Oh
one grade, gluf'ei the market. A crisis
occurred in 1863; mills were mortgaged
and Id for iractIon of their cost A
I. Stewart acquire mill after mill, but
even his business ability failtd to make
his factories pay: and up to the present
time here has been only a struggling
AMI unremunerative existence for this
industry, which has never been really
prosperous since the tariff of 1867.
To return To my opponents answer:
He says misguided him about SOC %
O,Oof sheep, representing a CAPT, al of
L
.'Tn.re are over 10000 aUOol growers
n tie United States, representa- cap
ital OF $500,OO0,0OO II they, rs 'roOl
ar. rers, represent capital Of $500 900 =
900. there is no escaping the conclusion
that each sheep is worth $40; but if he
means that besides owning nearly so :
CO., 600 of sheep, these men own ABOUT
s4C0 900 GOO In other properly then his
figures were misleading, and foreigp t.
the subject.
The gentleman evidently does not
know the value of quo 5atlon marks, for
in another instance, in which he Sa, |
am a prevarlcator, he has ignored
them. | wrote, "Becau>e"
pf the tariff Oh wool, lis words are
thes-: "6e >. use, sir ne knows that
his homes oil will be rewarded, etc
Remove the duty off DOL lead, or other
raw % oduets. and of hundredr of man
ufact red articles, and the poor OF
Amer Ca are no better tn III the poor OF
EuIope." gar
Aud in regard to his several ucc.ed
ing pa agraphs, l have only 10 REMIND
him that the question under discussion
is, not WneLner American laoorers are
in a better condition than English
laborers, but whether this difference is
due to the tariff.
But if tt gentleman says that Ameri
can laborers IL protected industI les are
higher paid than the same aborers in
England, deny it with the following
statistics: In America the laborers re-
ceived in 1878, in the woollen manufac-
lures, from $3.50 10 SO per week, work
ing sixty hours in Leeds the laborers
IN wool received from $4.32 to So y per
week, working fifty hours. In the pro-
tected iron mining, Pennsylvania pays
her miners from 70 cents TO 81 per day
the same wages as in Cornwall. While
in the cotton mills (there is no protec-
tive tariff on cotton) our laborers re-
celve from 20 to so per cent higher
wages than the cotton operatives of
England.
The gentleman speaks of tire great diff
hculty of raising wool IN this Country.
and the painful losses of sheep owners
but he gives this as reason for protec-
ton; whereas the present tariff on
wool was obtained on the very plea that
this country Is well adapted to the pro-
duction of wool. Mr.. Crane will have
it that wool-raising is risky and ILL
paying business, yet he keeps sinking
money in it, and calls upon others to
max, up his losses; while the lobbyists
say it is business that pays we'll, and
yet they keep asking for more help
for it.
Take which horn of this dilemma we
will, and the conclusion remains that in
neither case is the tariff justi6able,
whether TO keep men employed in
business that does. not pay, or to give
extra money to those already well paid.
1t would seem that the sheep bust
ness has been overdone of late; that the
attempt to raise sheep on land that can
more pro6tably be put to some other
use, will result in loss; that the undue
accumulation of sheep in the country
is financial detriment in more ways
than one; that other industries-the
raising OF other kinds of stock, for
exam ple-are being seriously injured
by the great number. of sheep in certain
districts; and that the sheep-owners do
themselves much injury by inducing
Congress to continue the present tariff.
But tie feeling against the present
tariff is becoming so strong, and so
many are investigating it, that the pro-
tectioDists must soon give way. Let Us
hope that In the near future, that piece
~ Follx1-fha foriff of 1897 Uhich in