St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-01
REPLIED TO JUSTICE.
Chairman Springer Answers
the Philadelphia Wool
Merchant.
Comparisons Made With In
ferior Foreign Wool by
the Latter.
Mr.. Justice Failed to State
the Whole Truth About
Sh9ddy.
Protective Tariff on Woods
Disastrous to Grower and
Manufacturer.

the ways and means committee, adj
dressed large audience at this place
today. He replied to the interview OF
Mr.. Justice, a member of the firm OF
Justice, Bateman & Co., wool dealers,
OF Philadelphia. In reference to this
interview MIR. Springer said:
''ln speech at Jacksonville. ILL.,, last
tuesday, took occasion to expose the
partisan character of so-called trade
circulars issued by Justice, Bateman &
Co.. wool and commission merchants, of
Philadelphia. l pointed out the-fact
that this firm had in its circular of July
20, 1892, published figures which
the same grade and condition III London
and in the United States during the
past twenty-five years, the time covered
by our high protective tariff Oh wool,
and that these figures showed that
American wool was worth 81 per cent
more Oh the average than the same
grade OF wool was worth in London.
his statement then pronounced as
Without Foundation
i'll fact, and that it was made for polite
al and partisan purposes. l stated at
Jacksonville, and l repeat it, that the
official statistics furnished the commit
tee of ways and means during the last
session by the Republican officials of
the government showed that the same
grade and condition Of wool in the
United States had sold for more than a
quarter of cent a pound less Oh the
average in the United States during the
past twenty-five years than in London.
''Mr. Justice, a member of this firm,
has been given large space in the
press reports, Of which do not COM
plain, III order to refute my statement.
He says the quotations for domestic
wool which he used are taken from Mr..
Sprlnger'S own report of the ways and
means committee to the house of repre-
Sentatlves tsee page 81, Report No. Sod
This statement is true as to the quota
tons of American wool given in Mr..
Justices table, as they are substantially
the same as those in my report. But
the quotations with which these figures
are compared are not taken from my
report, but they are compared with quo
tations furnished by that firm, and not
from any official source"
Misleading Comparison
"Now.I charge that,on the face of the
table of statistics which this firm has
published, it appears that comparison
Is made, first. between currency prices
in the United States and gold prices in
Europe, ana that during ten years of
this time our currency was deprecated
at one time as high as 80 per cent: and
second, that the American wool quoted
was washed wool, while the Australasian
wool quoted and compared in price was
New Zealand cross-bred wool in the
grease, and not only in the grease, but
OF an inferior quality, as compared with
the American wool quoted. The tariff
on wool i'll the grease is II cents pound,
and washed % cents. and secured 33
cents, which shows that the legal
ratio of value is that washed wool
is worth SO per cent more than wool in
the grease. Notwithstanding these
facts, this firm of wool dealers publishes
a statement comparing American
washed wool at currency prices in this
country with AuStralaSian wool in the
grease of inferior quality at gold prices
i'll London.
Does Know the Difference.
"Mr. Justice is pleased to state that
do not know the difference between the
value of soured and greasy woods. I'm
fortunately tor Mr.. Justice, | do know
this difference, and he knows it also,
but assumes that those without practi-
cal experience or knowledge of the sub
Ject, as he charges that 1 am, will
not discover the fraud as it IS
practiced by the comparison of
washed wool with wool in the grease.
He further says that have
procured my information from sources
as uniformed OH technical points as
am myself. This is a reflection upon
the integrity and capability Of the Off
Gals OF the government from whom |
obtained my information. They were
acting upon the responsibility of sworn
officers, and, although Republicans and
protectionists, and in favor of maintain
ing the high tariff on wool, they could
not afford to furnish false statistics
even for partisan purposes.
ION the subject of shoddy Mr.. Justice
is evasive and fails to state the whole
truth. The bill which | introduced and
which passed the house of representa-
tives during the last session, placed all
woods
On the Free List.
and put tariff of 25 per cent on shoddy.
The Mckinley bill taxed secured wool
65 cents pound, and shoddy, which is
in the condition of secured wool, so
cents pound. Now, if my bill should
become the law, wool would be free and
hpulu cC IuACo 81 pei CGlll.
Are our manufacturers so anxious to
use Shoddy that they would pay 25 per
cent tariff Oh it, when they could get
pure wool without paying any tariff
whatever?
But the anxiety about shoddy is for
the protection of the American shoddy
mills against competition with Shoddy
made abroad. SiXty-one million pounds
OF ShOddy were consumed in 1890 in the
manufacture of WOODEN goods in the
United States. and this amount had a
cloth producing capacity equal to the
wool product of nearly 3.000.00O sheep.
1t is high protection OIL wool that stnl-
ulates shoddy production and consump-
ton in this country. According to the
census report in $780, American wooden
goods contained only As parts of pure
wool to 55 parts of cotton, shoddy and
Other Adulterants.
''In some remarks | submitted to the
house of representatives on April last,
l explained fully the conditions which
caused prices of wool in this country TO
be less than the same quality OF wool
sold for III London. That speech is
published III my book ON tariff
reform, pages 373 to 3S1. In that
speech | pointed out all the cir
depressed IN price i'll this country, by
reason of the high tariff on wool and
WOODEN goods. l endeayored to estab-
lish the fact that free wool and reve-
nue. tariff on WOODEN goods were in the
interest of the wool grower as well as
the wool manufacturer, and that this
policy was especially i'll the interest of
the American consumer. 1t was clearly
demonstrated that the experience of the
past quarter of a century of high pro-
tective tariffs on wool and WOODEN goods
has proved the policy to be disastrous
to the wool grower, disastrous to the
wool manufacturer and disastrous to
the American consumers"