Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1888-01-15


the same time increased over one
third. In 1881 they declined again,
wool receding from $29, 500 900 to
80, 5000, 900, and goods from $3S $780,
900 to $31, 900, 600 The ordinary va
yiations from year to year are from 10
to 25 per cent. Now, such fluctua-
tions imply very unstable conditions,
and stability is q most necessary ele-
ment in continued prosperity. The
high tariff is disturbing cause which
prevents stability.
Since 1881 we have imported wool
at the rate of about $ll 900 900 a
year, and goods on an average of
about SAC, 000, 600. Now, it must be
borne in mind that the wool in wooden
goods imported completes with native
| wool Just as much as raw wool i'm
ported. The value of the wool in the
wooden goods is from so to 50 per cent
of the whole value, and as the value
given in the table is the value before
the duty is paid, the value of the wool
and goods as they enter into consump-
ton will be from 331s to As per cent
more than the sums set down here:
Raw wool, average import per
Add Duties, say 3s]5 per cent 100000
Wool in impOr ed goods ...... 25,OOO,OOO
Add duties at As per cent. 800. 11,250,0OO
This makes the total value to the
consumer of raw wool imported $780,
$780, 900.
The value of our entire wool clip is
less than 500, 900, probably not
much over $85, 900, 900, so that our
import of foreign wool is more than
one half our home product. Now,
we import this large amount of wool
and goods because we must. The
tariff tax which is paid on it comes
out Of the pockets of laborers and les
sens the ability of our consumers, and
SO helps to destroy our home market.
In this way, again, the tariff under
mines what it seeks to build up.
Further, suppose the tariff admitted
without duty the wool which enters
into the imported manufactured goods,
then these goods could be made by
our own workmen. They would COM
pete no more with homegrown woods
than they now do, but the American
wool manufacturer would get the
profit of working these woods which
the foreign manufacturer now receives,
and our foreign commerce would be
increased by direct trade with the
great wool-producing countries of the
world. The high tariff throws away
these advantages and gives no COM
| pensating benefit to the wool grower.
Under the high protective tariff we
have, then, a system which has been
found to fail entirely in producing the
results desired. 1t has neither fos-
tered wool-growing nor wool-manu-
featuring; it does not even prevent
the competition Of foreign wool and
foreign goods. 1t imposes heavy
tax upon productive industry. 1t has
been tried now for over twenty years.
Is it deserving of a longer trial ?
Ought not the statesmen OF our nation,
instead of appealing to the prejudices
OF the voters by the cry of "protec-
tion," to seek some means to place
the manufacturing industries of the
country on prosperous basis, to the
end that American workingmen may
be profitably employed and Ameri.
can wool growers may be furnished
with a good market?
This can only be done for the wooler
industry by lowering the tariff and sc
extricating it from the strained ant
awkward position in which it is placed
and by allowing the American manu-
facturer fair field in which to exer
else his skill. The prosperity of the
manufacturer will be the prosperity O
the wool grower.
AS Mr.. Hazard, in his arraignmen
Of the protective" tariff system. ha
given the price Of wool up to and in
GLIDING 1883, it only remains for tn,
Times correspondent to give the price
of medium Ohio wool for the sue
ceeding years to date. The price il
1883 is given as 43 cents per pound
in 1884 it was 81 Ito; in 1885, 80 2-10
in 1886, 35, and in 1887 from 80 to 3:
cents per pound. AS the tariff or
certain kinds of wool amounts to 1O(
per cent, it is difficult, considering
the present price of wool, to see how
the tariff maintains prices Cor. N
Y. Times.