The Forrest City times., 1891-04-17
THE TAX ON WOOL,
WHY WOOL SHOULD BE FREE.

Ex-Censul schoenhof on the Wool Duties | An Expert Opinion of Mckinley ism-- How Wools Differ = What Free Wool
 Would Do.
 [ When President Harrison camo into office, our Consul at Tunstall, England, was Mir. Jacob Schoenhof, of New York. This gentleman was formerly manu- facturer, and he had devoted much time and study to ascertaining the labor cost of producing goods in this country and in Europe. Having special knowledge on this subject he was appointed by Mir. Cleveland to the consulship at Tunstall, and was specially charged by Secretary Bayard to make an extensive investiga- ition of the labor cost of production of manufactured articles in England and on the continent.
 Before Mir. Cleveland's term expired several reports of great value by MT. Schoenhof had been published by the State Department. His work. however, was not yet complete when President Harrison removed him from office. He has recently begun to publish a series of 4etters which will serve as a sort of con- tfnuation of his reports to tho Govern ment He will go into the cost of pro- duction of all the leading lines of goods fin this country and Europe, and this series of letters is sure to prove an i'm portant contribution to the tariff ques- tion.
 In one of these letters MT. Schoenhof gives considerable attention to the wool tariff. Of all the manufacturers, he says, the woolen manufacturers would have benefited by the Mills bill. 1t freed raw wool and gave protection of 40 per cent. Now, it is well known that the entire labor cost in pound of manu- factured woolens, such as are made in this country, does in very few instances reach as high as 10 per cent on the cost of a foreign-made article, with which it has to compete The foreign article not alone covers tho cost of tho wool, of labor, and of the incidental expenses of manufacture, but also the interest of capital and the profits of the manufact- urers and dealers handling the goods The duty of 40 per cent, therefore, GOV CTS not alone the cost of capital and management. but of the freed wool itself consumed in the manufacturing process.
 Free wool would have vitalized the range of wool manufacture, now in a state of permanent infancy, in constant need of syrups and props The only ones benefited by the wool and war tariff, the shoddy manufacturers, quite naturally have been standing in the breach in defense of the palladium of protection against the enemies of the holy faith. It is not to be wondered at that they put their hands deep into their pockets for the creation of fund which was to buy an election and a tariff to their liking. But strange to say, many of those were contributors who could only be benefited by tariff reform, ss taken up by the Democratic party, downwardly, and injured only by reform ing upwardly, as represented by the Republican party. The present tariff, the Mckinley act, is the outcome of their wellconsidered, deliberate de- nands. They insisted on obtaining, and they have obtained, a measure which proceeds in diametrically oppo- site direction from what their interests actually command
 They certainly ought to have known that the industries of this country are based on an entirely different foundation from that of any other country. If SO, tho certainly ought to have asked for something quite different than that which they claimed with so much insist eace. But if they lost sight of this in the scramble for higher tariff rates it need not be surprising that the legisla- tors who are responsible for the measure did not care to examine deeply into the rates demanded or inquire into the rela- tive industrial pos. tions of the United States and the countries of Europe, against which the late tariff act is chiefly intended to operate, the only cus- toners of our farmers worth speaking of.
 The legislators responsible for the act did what they were expected to do. They simply delivered the goods for value received in 1888, with tentative hint to future campaign contributions.
 Our own wools show conclusively that almost every State in the Union pro- duces q different grade of wool. For instance: The wools raised in the far West in the new Territories and States are considered very inferior to the wools raised in the States east of the Missis- Appi The pasturage consists of wild grasses, which during the dry season become parched, leaving the dry, sandy soil underneath as fine dust or sand, which permeates the fleece, adding much to it's shrinkage, and changing not only It's appearance but the strength of staple, more especially where the soil is alkaline. Such wools lack In lustre and spring, and goods made from them show . dead, cottony appearance. They could not possibly be used as an offset in the manufacture of fabrics, which we i'm port, amounting in 1890 to $50, GOO, GOO, and adding duties, $35, ,0eO, 900, repre- Sents SS5, ,00o, 900 American value laid down at the ports, exclusive or freight and other charge&
 For the replacing of this vast amount our own wool supply would be entirely insufficient We raiss tho correspond- ing vools in very limited quantities (and, what is mors to the point, in receding quantities) in the older States only. Texas and California wools have good felting properties. For combing pur- poses they are unserviceabla Of comb ing wools only limited amount Is raised 3n the States lying east of the Mississ- tppi But most Of the goods used for outer wear arc now m ade of com bed and not of carded wool
 The same differences we find in Eng 1lsh wools. The Southdown wool is diff ferent from tho north country wool; the Scotch wool different from tho English woois; the Welsh wool different from the English and Scotch. Even in Scot land certain woo!s are grown in certain parts, so that tweeds can only be made from certain Scotch wools Irish wool is different again. Welsh, Irish, and Scotch wools shrink but very little when manufactured into fannels, knit goods, etc. in the washing, German and Amer ieAn wools very much moro so. Aus tralian, Cape, and Plate wools differ