Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-03-15
TUFTARIFF DUrY on WOOL.

HE IAtNlEE III IL ON 'cNN
The REGISTER presents to its readers
this morning a very we'll written article
byrMr. E X. POLLOCK touching the re-
moval Of the tariff duty on wool, as pro-
posed IN the MILLS bill. Ia ii the gentle
man makes 4 lengthy reference to what he
considers to be the claim Of the free wool
men, that the price Of wool would be
raised by putting it on the free list. In
reference to this proposition it is sufficient
to say that the REGISTER has never adj
vanced il, though it has shown by ineon-
troyertible facts that the price of wool Is
not altogether dependent on the tariff duty,
Mr.. POLLOCK says under the present
tariff We produce ten times as much WOOL
as we did under free trade, and asks WAS
il the high tariff or the increased produe-
ton that cheapened wool, and would the
increased production have occurred with
ont the tarif?' Ia framing this question
the gentleman admits the REGISTERS po'
sition that the price of wool is not neces'
sarily higher, and may be lower, under a
high tariff tax than when on the free list
or under q low rate of duty. But the
price of wool is the all important fact with
the wool grower. If the present tariff, by
encouraging disastrous competition has, as
Mr.. Pollock admits, forced the price Of
wool lower than when no duty was i'm
posed on il, the removal Of that duty viii
certainly be no hardship to the wool
grower.
The impression is general that the price
of foreign woods increased by the tariff
duties must inevitably FIX the price of the
home product. The truth seems to be that
home competition-the competition of
American wool with American wool
fixes aud maintains that price. The
REGIsTER does not beSevs that the wool
industry in this country is altogether de-
pendent on the tariff duty. Iudisputable
facts have been addueed, showing that the
prices on wool have been frequent
ly as high, under a low rate
of duty as under a high, and
that moreover the variation in price in
successive years often more than exceeds
the tariff tax. Between the years 1886
and 1887 the selling prices Of wool
varied from ~thirty-eight to twenty
eight cents. This, too, when the tariff
duty was the sams in every partieu.
lar. Is it not conclusive proof that the
tariff Is not the decisive influence in regu-
lating the price OF wool? That the wool
growers in this country are not o and
never have been entirely dependent upon
it for their profits?
Let it not be thought that it is claimed
that the reduction OF the tariff will not
affect the producers Of wool; but it is de-
MED, and the facts bear ont the denial,
that the removal Of the duty will cause the
paralysis Of the industry, as asserted by
high tariff advocates.
The inference that sths tariff tax has
built up our wool industry is not neeessa-
rily a Just one. In the forty or more years
in which it is claimed the wool product Of
the country increased from 80, 900, coo
pounds to 300, DOC, 900 pounds, ths popu.
lation ofthe country has more than trebled.
The psopls as a rule are ~althier aud the
use of wooden fabrics is far more general,
TT-Io- -,,L ,.r.n,,aAannaa IN annrmnn1
increase in the production Of wool would
be natural and legitimate. 1t is unfair
reasoning to attribute TO the tariff what
would necessarily have been brought about
by natural causes.
The tables which Mr.. POLLOCK presents,
and which seem to show SO c~ouclusiyeiy
the disastrous effects of competition with
foreign woods, are for one month Of one
year only, and a comparison Of prices at
only two markets. To be authoritative or
convincing such tables must be complied
for many years and many different mar
kets. 1t is hardly necessary to say that 4
series of tables, covering only a brief period
and q few particular localities, may be ar
ranged to support any proposition, how
ever absurd.
Mr.. POLLOCK can not see that the wool
grower will be in any way compensated for
his possible loss in the reduced price of his
product. He considers it q manifest injus-
tiee that a duty is left on manufactured
woolsns HeoverloOks the faet that the duty
on wooden goods, according to the MILLS
bill, is reduced on the average 10 per cent
The raw wool duty is reduced only 30 per
cent. The benefits of the 40 per cent. re-
duction will accrue to every consumer.
But this is not all. The free wool pro-
vision is q section Of q tariff bill which
effects Other reductions. The wool grower
is not TO be deprived of his protection,
seaut as il may seem without being COM
psusated for the loss. Every article Of use
or convenience Is c~heapeDed. The fuTDi-
ture of his house, the clothing upon bis
body, the implements Of his daily toll are
mt in his hands &c q less outlay. Only
one conclusion can be drawn, and that is
what may be lost to the average wool
rrOEer bya slight reduction in the price Of
his wool will be repaid many fold in the
reduced cost Of the necesssries Of life.
The REGISTER has the kindliest wishes
for the farmers Of our land whoare engaged
in raising sheep. 1t has not singled them