The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1890-06-13

| out the ad valorem percentages and calls
| upon his readers to see what enormous taxes
| they are paying ON their clothing. Unfor-
tunately for his argument he prints I'm an
other column the statement OF an Eastern
paper that sixty per cent of our WOODEN fac
| tories are shut down because they cannot
compete with foreign manufacturers. He
also points out that our home manufacturers
| furnish the only possible market for Ameri-
| can wool.
| The common sense conclusion from all this
| is that the only remedy for the depression
| in American woods, and the only way to
make a profitable market for them Is to set
these idle mills at work. This is what the
Mckinley bill proposes, and Is In harmony
with all its schedules to restore prosperity to
the American farming, the largest and most
| important class OF American industries.
But this does not please our Free Trade adj
vocates. They therefore assail the Mckln-
| ley bill, and point to the high duties on
wooden goods, as il ii were true that these
duties were grevious tax OH American
farmers and not in fact for their advantage
The wool and wooden schedules of this
bill keep one thing distinctly in view: to
develop and strengthen the market for wool
| so that our farmers may increase their pro-
duction of wool and be relieved from destruc-
| tive foreign competition. 1t is known that
we consume i'm the u. s. about 600, 900, 900
| lbs. of wool and that we produce less than
800. 600, 900 lbs. The Secretary of Agricul-
| ture has shown that our farmers might, IL
properly protected from barbarian competi-
| ton, raise nearly IL not quite the wool we
i consume, with great advantage to every part
of the country. 1t would double our fiocks,
and more than double the aggregate value of
our woods. Every farmer can appreciate the
advantages of such a change. 1t would Of
itself alone make agriculture prosperous.
To offset this national gain we are asked to
look at the increased tax on foreign wooden
goods, by which this fortunate resultis to be
accomplished Well, let us look at it. Let
every farmer look at 1t, and the more care
fully he looks at 1t the better he will like 1t.
| If he remembers what he paid for a suit of
clothes twenty or thirty years ago, he will
see that he now pays not more than half
what he then had to pay. If he figures up
what his clothes cost to-day, he
will see that il they are at
all increased In cost by import duties,
the increase is so small as to be imprecepti-
BILE by the closest scrutiny. In point Of fact
| the clothing used by our farmers and their
families is as cheap or cheaper than similar
clothing could be had in any other part of
| the world. Ordinary clothing, used every
WIeTe, Dv dil CldSSco, 10 hOo uhSSeVo
price by the Tariff.
The Fort Dodge Messenger of April 10,
| 1890, says the general reduction In dry goods
since 1883 is 23 to 33 per cent, and on ready
made clothing 80 to 50per cent. GOOD SER
yiceabe suits can be had for 81 to So 1t is
| the universal opinion of all familiar with the
| trade that the Tariff cuts no figure at all in
the cost of such goods as laboring men and
| farmers wear for common. Such goods are
as cheap here as in England"
| Free Trade orators in the campaign of
| 1888, who tried TO stir up hostility to PrOtec-
ton, on the ground that it made clothing
dearer, were effectually shut up by the ire
sistable logic of the fact that great variety
of ordinary wOOlens were made and sold in
| this country from American woods, in Amer
| lean factories, with American machinery and
by well paid American labor, for less than
the amount of the duty paid on similar goods
when imported. The campaign illustration
of this fact by the five dollar overcoat worn
by Mr.. f. A. HartshOrn. of New York, a
Tariff speaker, and by the four and half
dollar suit worn by Senator Ely, of OHIO,
on his speaking tour in that state, and, last
| ", by the famous ten dollar suit shown by
| Mr.. Mckinley during his Tariff speech in
the house of Representatives--all these evil
dences were too conclusive to require further
| comment.
1t is one of the tricks of Free Trade ora
| tors to point out the high rate of duties on
wOolens without mentioning the fact that the
larger part of these duties are only accom-
pensation for the increased cost of wool
caused by the Tariff to protect the American
farmer and wool grower. In the list of adj
valorem rates Oh wooden yarn, blankets,
cloths, &C., given by the Michigan Free
Trade editor it will be found on examination
that the Protection given to the manufacture
er, on whose prosperity it is conceded the
prosperity of American sheep husbandry de-
ponds is only 40 per cent on such classes Of
goods as go into the largest general con-
sumption, on cheap clothing, hannes and
blankets; and this is the same rate that his
| Free Trade friends, the authors Of the Mills
| bill proposed to allow. On the finer grades
| of wooens the Protection for the manufac-
| turers Is from 40 to so per cent. All of the
ad valOrem rates specified in the list given
by the Michigan Free Trade editor over and
above these figures, or nearly two-thirds of
the duties on wooden goods are strictly and
absolutely for the benefit of the wool grower
and to protect and develop that branch of
American farm industries.
The rate OF Protection for the wooden man.
ufacturer is no greater than is given to the
cOIIon vi oilk vi any OtueT important MANU-
featuring industry. On the lower grades of
wOolens, such as go into general consump-
ton, it is considerably less. If, therefore,
anything can be said of the rates on wooden
goods proposed in the new bill, it is that on
the goods going into general use there has
been shown by the trainers of the bill JUS
tifable Partially toward the average Amer-
can consumer against the consumers of the
higher and finer qualities of w6olens. And
this also is i'm line with the general purpose
of the bill to favor whatever and as much as
practicable the interests of American agri-
culture.
The statement showing the disaster to
American wool manufacturers and American
wool growers since 1883 only confirm the
claim of the people engaged i'm these indus
tries that the reductions made in the
Tariff act of 1888 were unjust and
destructive of these industries. 1t is
absurd to talk of the failure of
these industries to respond to change of
administration. No one can be so blind as
not to see that no change i'm the Tariff has
yet been made and that our industries are
J still laboring under all the disadvantages of
former Legislation. 1t will also be recog-