New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-09-06

are S"'i'''' WV" JUSTICE, BATEMAN & co.
PHILADELPHIA August "a, 1892
Mr.. STEELS LETTER.
ur WRITES FROM ExPERIENOE-FREET TRADE IN
ENGLAND AND PROTECTION IN THE
UNITED STATES.
Gentlemen: My attention has been drawn 10 your e
.ort dissenting from that OF the majority OF your
committee which recommended the passage Vi 'ne
bill known as the Springer Free Wool Dill De'"s
sheent at the time l had not previously seen OF
known OF your illusions 10 the operations OF my nr
as an Illustration Of your argument but as 20" nave
chosen these as an object lesson feel at liberty 10
communicate with you In further exemphncauon Oh
the subject. 40
por IN the passage OF the act known as the Tarn OF
1853 nv firm was largely engaged In handi'ng AMER
can made goods, principally In contracting WIN hiS
for large lines OF their products, having paid 10 one
establishment alone over half million dollars per
annum for its fabrics. After the Tariff OF 1888
which reduced the duties on this class OF goods we
never made another contract with IN American MIL
and after six months from that time, never pough'
another piece Of American made goods. Inc passage
of that act notified Of the coming destruction
"A our principal business which had built by
lifetime OF exertion Qs57 to 1889. Having been for
manv years importers, knew values abroad, and
rather than see the whole OF our business that mad
value swept into the hands OF foreign houses,
went to England before the tariff OF 1888 TOOK erect
and arranged to supply from there the class OF goods
we had been getting from American mills. This l
carried on successfully UP to the time the act Of $780,
known as the Mckinley law, and restoring the duties,
went Into operation.
THE GOODS ARE NOW MADE HERE
since then have not had yard OF this class OF
goods from abroad, except few pieces from previous
contracts untitled that date. The goods are now
made here That law again destroyed our business
nd In I'd IN "A
been devoted TO, my firm was compelled to establish
here works to reproduce the goods had been getting
made In England. The result Is what the circular
YOU allude to asserts. ave now making In the
United States better goods and at lower prices than
under the act Of 1888 could afford TO sell imported
goods for" The fate that averted by going abroad
for our goods in 1888 befe very large number OF
establishments many Of the largest and best organized
mills and mercantile houses In the country failed,
and none OF them afterward made money In proper
ton to the investment and exertion, compared with
similar establishments In foreign lands. The work was
transferred to the laborers, and the profits largely TO
the merchants Of other countries That was In Obedi
ence to the CRY at that time for tariff reform"
without the tariff of 1890, known the Mckinley
law this branch OF trade could not have been
citated without great reduction in the OF the
workers In IT, That law restored virtually the scale
Of protection that the law Of 1888 destroyed. The
wOollen manufacturers OF this country have been
struggling against the competition OF large quantities
Of merchandise thrown into the county prior Oc-
tober. 1890, In advance Of demand and since, with
great bulk Of imports less than OF manufacture
well as with the stagnang influences Of the 6nan
cfa crisis OF 1890. They beginning recover
from these dSheartening obstacles without reduction
In the pay Of mill workers; should, however the
Springer Free Wool bill become law, am confident
that In six months time scarcely weOlen mill In
the country would be turning wheel. The only
work OF these mills would be 10 wind up and close till
necessity compelled the workers to accept such pay
competition with the readmlttod foreign goods
allowed. and this competition would be greatest against
the cheaper class Of goods which forms the bulk OF
the work our home mills engaged upon at the
simple ad valorcm duty there proposed the cheap
shoddy goods OF England would drive out OF business
every American competitor. The protection now
afforded is scarcely adequate 10 cover the difference
between cost OF making here and abroad vet this bill
reduces the protection fully 90 per cent on the id
valorem rate alone. and much on the specific
With the protection II proposes. free wool there
Is no article within my knowledge OF the range OF
wooiien or worstd fabrics that could be imported
at good profit 70 the foreign manufacturer and
dealer, cheaper than Its cost produce by the most
skilful and competent manufacturer In the United
States giving both parties the raw material at pre-
cisely the same cost.
RESULTS OF DECLINES IN VALUES
tere bog your attention 10 point that does not
appear 10 have been noticed by any one dscus sing
these tariff changes whether against or I'm favor Of
them, but which greatly wcakens all tie arguments
for what Is denoDhnated "reformn In the direction
Of lower duties II is, that through the constant
decline In values OF almost every manufactured article
there has been for many years steady abatement IN
the measure OF tariff protection to tie American mann
facurer and his employees, and equally steady de-
crease in whatever burden the Protective tariff may
have imposed upon those-if there any-whO de.
rive no benefit from 1t. This Is more marked in the
wOolen trade than in any other there is there.
FORE the Least for the advocates Of Free Trade
10 single out this branch OF industry for special attack
even were excessive protection, Instead OF the deermi-
nation 10 carry out pet political scheme the real
anmus that stimulates them. Prior 10 the Act OF
1883 the protective duties 90 manufactures OF wool
were virtually what they are. so per cent, which
was the rate adjusted upon values existing when the
law was framed, necessary 10 cover the higher
cost not only OF labor, but Investment and many
otter conditions under which the manufacture Is
carried with difficulty in the Upited States.
At that time wool much higher and goods cost
abroad more than double what they now do so that
upon a clotl, costing abroad 81 25, the home mann
facuircr had 90 12 cents Of protection to cover his
disadvantages. Goods that then cost 81 % can now
be bought for 90 cQpts or less that with the same
rate OF protection, American manufacturer has n)w
at most ory 30 cents OF protection or less than half
that Of former years. Meantime the labor 10 the mill
Is at least as well paid then; In many instances Il
y better paid showing that whilst In this country
the products OF labor have materially decreased in
value. Its rewards have been maintained and there
fore It's purchasing power greatly augmented which
Is equivalent to a corsesp onding increase of pay.
DAMAGE PROPOSED by THE SPRINGER BILL.
The prices I have cited in this comparison are