Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1889-05-31
Sheep Jnterest.
THEWOOL DECISION.


editor of the New York Press gives
statement of the facts bearing upon the
recent important wool decision:
My attention is directed to two allega-
tons or accusations, repeated in various
forms in many newspapers, regarding the
recent action of Collector Erhardt of
New York in classifying worsted cloths
as wooden cloths. The charges are that
the Redistribution is made in violation
of the terms of the law, as it was known
and intended to be construed when amen
ded in 1888, and that it has been made in
pursuance political bargain, or as the
result of polite favor extended to the
manufacturers, and with no expectation
that it will be sustained by the courts.
AS the president of the National ASSOC
citation of Wooden Manufacturers, which
organization originated the agitation for
this Redistribution and has pressed it
increasingly before Congress and three
secretaries of the treasury, it becomes
my duty to say publicly, in behalf of
in reply to these accusations, that they
are in every sense and shade of meaning
as false and unfounded as they are I'M
just and ungenerous. | shall ask only so
much space as may be necessary to DEM
onstrate the truth of this denial.
The demand for this Reconsideration
has been based on the broad ground that
it was required by both the spirit and
the letter of the law, and was therefore
an act of justice to American manufacture
ers, which was required at the hands of
the administrative officers, and could be
attained in no other way than by ruling.
The printed arguments by which the Off
GERS of this association have sought to
secure this act of justice fill several hun
dred pages, and there can be found in
them nowhere a hint or suggestion that
any other view of the law was ever taken
by them.
The statement of the Boston Herald
that this whole controversy was opened
before the tariff commission of 1882, and
that the claim of the manufacturers that
worsted cloths should pay the same dut-
les as wooden cloths was subsequently
rejected by Congress, with full knowl-
edge of the similarity in their material,
methods of manufacture and use, is so
Numerically at variance with authenti-
Gated history that | marvel to find it in a
ppwsnanar usuallv ayact
Not until after the tariff act of 1889
went into operation did the subject at
tract attention or present a disturbing
element in our industrial growth. The
value of the importation of wooden
goods. entered for consumption, which
were classified as manufactures OF
worsted not specially enumerated or pro-
vded for valued
at not exceeding eighty cents pei
pound" amounted in 1888 to SIGH ,4S5
foreign value-an amount about thirty
five times as large as the importations OF
the same in 1881. about twenty-three
times as large as in 1892, and thirteen
times as large as in 1888, in which year
the value of such importations was only
$500 Sl, foreign value. As these i'm.
portations displaced our own product in
ever increasing volume, it began to be
apparent what was the matter The
subject was first investigated in 1884
and only lack of time for its full under.
standing prevented application for recti
fication of the error by President Ar
thurs administration.
TWAS found that before the volume Of
these imports was of moment, the err
rOneOus classification had been inadver
tently made without any examination OF
the question by the treasury authorities
that there had never been any offica
construction of the law which required
or justified it; that the intent of Con
gress. as revealed in the debates and a:
indicated in all related sections of tn,
law, was set at naught by it. Thereupol
the manufacturers concluded that they
as well as the importers, had some rights
under the law-rights which they .hinl
the government is bound to respect. They
set to work to secure them; and afte
four years of dilly-daly and Sinking
during which they and their employee
, have suffered in the amount of many mil
, lions of dollars, they have succeeded il
getting their rights.
The manufacturers asked, first at TIN
hand of Secretary Manning, and then o
his successor, a ruling on this question
If either secretary thought the existing
| classification correct neither of them haC
the courage to so rule and give the rea
sons which he thought vindcated tina
, Interpretation against the arguments b.
. which the National association satisfied
r unpreudiced observers that it was wrong
On the contrary, Secretary Fairchild per