Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1890-01-04
News by Telegraph
FROM ALL QUARTERS.
The TARIFF HEARING,
Warm Arguments Against
Free Wool.
A DISASTROUS SNOW SLIDE.
Eight Persons Probably
Killed in California.
JUDGE KELLEY IMPROVING.
Close of the International
Maritime Exhibition.
JUDGE KELLEY IMPROVING.
THE TARIFF HEARING.

Maritime Exhibition.
THE TARIFF HEARING.
The Ways and Means Committee Lis.
ten to . Lively Dlscussion OF she
| Wool QuestIOn-HOn. william Law.
renee In Favor OF tho Protective
Policy-Oshsr Warm Appeals for Pro.
teetien.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 3.-The ways and means
committee this morning listened to Repre-.
sentative Carter of Montana, who spoke on
the sheep husbandry of the eastern slope OF
the Rocky mountains. He thought that the
wool industry of Montana would be lost if
there were no tariff on wool.
Mr.. Sheppard, Texas wool grower, spoke
in favor of protection. He gave figures to
show that iu Texas it costs from 10 to 10
cents pound to produce fine wool, and that
it cannot be laid down in Boston at less than
10 cents pound, while the Australian wool
could be laid down there, If there was no
duty on it, at 6 cents a pound. He favored
q uniform duty on all gra des of wool, and
suggested 10 cents pound as a fare rate.
The witness said if the Mills bill had gone
into effect the wool growers would all have
gone out of business.
Mr.. Mills put series of questions designed
| to make the witness admit that the 10 cents
| o pound duty on wool was the protection of
capital, not labor, which was being robbed,
he said, to that extent.
The witness replied that he would like to
rob, not the poor man, but the rich man,
such as congressman and senators, who were
rohhipn ehaar, roiaara hu rriv
them their dues. He declared that he was q
Democrat, all but free trade. He could not
stand that. He had voted for President
Cleveland the first time, and would have
voted for him the second time if he had not
| sought to slaughter sheep raisers for the sake
of free trade.
Hon. William Lawrence, of Ohio, then
| read a statement. He eaid he was one of a
committee appointed by the National Wool
Growers association, and his duty was to
address the committee on two subjects, the
| first being the proper duty on carpet wool
and the second the provisions of law neces-
| sary to secure an honest administration of
| the tariff law. It was safe to cay that wool
growers believed that a sound policy required
the imposition of such a duty on so-called
carpet woods as would, in due time, enable
American wool growers to produce all the
carpet wool required for consumption in the
United States, shutting out foreign importa-
tions and giving to the American wool grow
ers the privilege of supplying all the carpet
wool required for consumption here. Either
| the protective policy should be abandoned
the protective policy should be made effectual
80 as to give the whole American market to
home producers.
| Mr.. McMillin-What would we then dc
for revenue! Would you levy additional
taxesa
| The Witness-I would give to the Amer.
lean producer the privilege of supplying
| everything that can be supplied in sufficient
quantities to meet all demands at reasonable
prices. If we cannot derive sufficient reve
nue. from customs, We have the whisky
| tax, the tobacco tax, and all other interna
revenue taxes to the amount of 30,000, 00t
q year.
In answer to questions the witness said he
favored taking the tax off tobacco, and alco
hol used in the arts, and admitting, without
duty, such articles as cannot be produced II
Mr.. Carlisle-Are You in favor of taking
the duty off sugar?
The witness-Sugar does not fall within
the policy of protective tariff for the reason
that for more than 20 years with protection
the sugar industry has not been developed tt
supply more than 10 per cent. of the CON
sum ption of the country. We can develop
| tu0 WOOl AuOuoVAy ~ 40 w supply 0AA oA0 WV
we want.
The chairman-Is it not one of the com
plants against the protective system that VI
are raising too much revenuea
The witness-Yes, and all the efforts o
the last administration and of the presen
one have not been able to get rid of the sur
plus.
After the recess Mr.. Lawrence resumed hi
statement. The duties which he had beel
instructed by the National Wool Growers
association to ask to have inserted in the bill
were, he said, not at all prohibitory, ant
only to limited extent protective. III
would purposely omit the tariff speed
which he would like to make in Congress II
the effect that an adequate duty on wool AM
manufactured wooden goods would not ulti
mately increase the cost at all, while. if tn
protective policy were abandoned and al
such products were imported from abroad
the result would be that the American PEG
pie would be at the mercy of foreign trust
and corporations.
Mr.. Carlisle-That argument rests on tn
assumption that the home industry would b
abandoned.
The witness-Yes, the effect of the TART
of 1883 mas been to cut down vastly tn
number of our sheep and with free wool, tn
wool industry would be practically abandon
ed in the United States.
The next witness, Mr.. John T. Rich, 9
Michigan, representative of the Michiga
Merino Sheep association, said they desire
that there should be no reduction of duty o
wool; that there shall be substantial pre-
lection and that frauds in importations G
wool shall be prevented.
Mr.. James Dobson, of Philadelphia, car
pet manufacturer, next addressed the CON
mittee. criticising what he called "the vic
lent TRADE" which Mr.. Lawrence had ir
dulged in against carpet manufacturer
and denying the correctness of many of hl
statements. Mr.. Dobson argued that til
and could not produce the quantity Of cal
pet wool used in that industry, becaua
where they received 81 so for the fleece of
fine wool sheep they would receive twenty
five cents for that Of q coarse wool sheep.
Mr.. William Whitman, of Boston, pre-
ident of the National Association of woo
manufacturers, next addressed the commit
adopted by that association. The associs
ton took the position, he said, not to al
tempt to fix the duty on wool, but to leav
that to the committee without remark {
comment. He would say, however, that tn
prevailing sentiment among the manufsctul
ers connected with the organization was
/ preference for the maintenance of the exist
l ing duties, and that the present rates shout
not be increased. They would certainly Of
of foreign wool, and he did not believe thu
the committee would attempt such q thin
because it would be impossible for wo
manufacturers to produce all the goot
: necessary for home consumption unless the
could have foreign wool. The wool mai
ufacturers, he said, were willing to have
protective duty on wool, but not prohil
itory or restrictive duty.
Mr.. Bayne-Haveyo you figured out what tn
duty shall be?
The witnees-No, We have not gone in,
!. that. We do not come here to make q
< argument for lower duty on wool or +
higher duty on wool. We are sattsfied vii
the duty as it now il.
Alexander e. Kursheedt of PHILADELPHIA
braid manufacturer, argued in favor cf
specific duty Of 70 cents pound on bgaid
!, and SO per cent. ad valorem.
John F. Plummer of New York made sor
d remarks ON the subject of woolsn fabri
, worn by men, and said that he di9sso, mot
q manufacturer nor "a wool grower, but
an enthusiast in favor of American wo
products. the country was suffering und
- popular prejudice that better clothes cou
y be got abroad than here for the same prie
IS He declared that thste was no country whe
. man could get a good suit Of clothes
as little moneY'as in the United States.
The committee at $50 adjourned.
Z