The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-08-12
MIR. INGRAHAM AND FREE WOOL.

MIX. INGkAHAM AND EREE WOOL.
Our esteemed contemporary, the East
ern Argus, invites our attention to the
following paragraph from the speech of
the Hon. Darius H. Ingraham at Bruins
wick:
Now here are three cargoes of wool arriving
in Boston which the despatch says is worth
half million of dollars. This wool is to be
necessary in every family The duty paid must
be added by the manufacturers to the cost OF
the article. The man who buys the article has
to pay that extra It comes out 81 the G Go
much is it that the consumer pays for tax ON
that wool? Here are the rates OF duty On I'M
washed merino WOOL II cents pound; on
wool, 80 cents a pound. So that on one hun
dred dollars worth of merino wool, the consum-
er pays S154.10; OIL 500 worth OF combing
wool Sl66.52; on 500 worth OF carpet wool,
50 per cent. ad. ", $4,000.
MI. Ingraham has put his figures in
such a way that it is very difficult to
test their accuracy. That however
makes little difference with the point
that Mr.. Ingraham seeks to make, which
is that if the duty was taken off from
wool the consumer would get his goods
at price less than the present price by
the amount of the duty. That by no
means follows, 1t might follow perhaps
if we could be certain that wool growing
would still be carried on in this country
after the removal of the duty to the same
extent that it is carried on today. But
not only could we not be certain that it
would, but on the contrary experience
shows that we could be certain that it
would not. From 1868 to 1883 the wool
growing business increased in this coun-
try very rapidly, the tariff giving the
requisite protection, but in 1888 the wool
tariff was reduced and then the business
of wool growing fell off In alarming pro-
portions. If under that reduction the
business rapidly decreased, with wool
free it needs no prophet to foreteh what
the result would be. 1t would be the
destruction of the industry-rapid and
complete. After this destruction was
accomplished we should have to depend
entirely upon imported wool, and
should be completely at the mercy of the
foreign grower. Does Mr.. Ingraham and
the Argus think that when that condition
arrived the foreign grower would not
put up his price? Does Mr.. Ingraham
think that the destruction of our wool
industry would make no difference in
the price we should have to pay for inn
ported wool? Mr.. Ingraham has des-
canted good deal upon the business
of monopolies and trusts. Does he sup
pose the foreign wool monopoly which
the removal of the tariff on wool would
inevitably create would be less heartless
than our home monopolies which ne SO
unsparingly castigates.
Let us look at some facts and figures
that have direct bearing on this ques-
ton. Mr.. Ingraham is very fond of re-
ferring to the good old days prior to
1860, when we had low tariffs-tariffs for
revenue chiefly. In those good old
times we raised very little wool and i'm
ported large part of what we con-
sumed, under low tariff. If Mr.. Ingra-
hams theory is correct, that the removal
of the duty will decrease the price of
wooden goods by just it's amount, then of
course it ought to follow that in 1850
wooden goods were much cheaper than in
1888. Now what are the facts? The
wooden blanket which in 1860 brought in
this country 50 could be purchased in
1888 for $1.02. The blanket that sold in
1888 for 81. 45 in 1860 brought $3.50, and
the blanket that sells now for $4.35 sold
then for $3.50. If Mr.. Ingraham's theory
is correct how does it happen that these
blankets cost the American consumer SC
much more in 1860 than in 1888? Per
haps Mr.. Ingraham, can explain it con
sistently with his theory, but we do not
believe it. The truth undoubtedly is
that the blanket cost more in 1860, be-
| cause we raised little wool and manufac
tured little, and therefore had to pay
tribute to the selfshness of the foreign
| wool grower and manufacturer.
There are plenty of examples of the
| GlcCU upuu pIlCcb VI LILO SlOSIA uSolOA VI
home industries, and the surrender OF
their business to foreigners. Here is
striking one. A number of years age
the Missouri Glass Company was organ
lied. Its speciality was the manufacture
of cathedral glass. In November, 1881
this factory was destroyed by fire, ane
the foreign manufacturers were without
competitor? What happened? With
in ten days the price of cathedral glass
was advanced to the American consumer
by the foreign manufacturer IS per cent
Is it at all likely thatlthe foreign WOO
growers and the manufacturers would be
| anv more considerate than the foreign
glass manufacturers?
Tt is fair to assume that the Democratic
| candidate for Congress in this district
endorses the Democratic national plat
form adopted at Chicago. Now thai
platform, if it means anything, means
| the removal of the tariff not only from
wool, but from the manufactures of wool