The weekly tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1891-1894, 1892-03-12
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
THEIR PLAIN STATEMENTS OF FACTS
TO CONGRESS.

The Experiment of Taxing Wool Has Been
Tried Long Enough, They Think, to
Show Its Futiiity-They Have to import
Wool and Domestic wool Is Lower.
To the Honorable the Senate and House
Of Representatives Of the United
States:
The Wool Consumers association re-
spectfully petitions the Fifty-second
congress to change schedule X, relating
to wool and woolcns. in the tariff act Of
1890. for the relief of wooden nanufac-
turers and for the benefit of all consum-
ers of wooden fabrics.
1t is of course undesirable in general
to cil'nge tariffs frequently. bat the gen
eral principles of the act Of 1880, as an
piled TO wool and wOolcns. are the same
as have been tried unsltisfactorilr for
very many years. except that it aggra-
Yates some of the worst and most on
prcssivc features Of former acts in rela-
ton 10 wool.
The act has therefore practically been
tested by the trials of many years. and
there u no occasion TO test it longer by
experience. IL is net true that the aCt
in its present form can work no harm t.
WOODEN manufacturers. 1t works the
same injury 10 the makers of wooden
aud worstc.i cloth that the restrictions
OH the use Of wool always have pro-
11,.Nl ..,,l -, H., 1900, - Al, ,.--
trade, which consumes II very large pro-
portion Of all the imported wool, il i.
the most oppressive act evcr passed.
The wool schedule * of the tariff act
of 1890 offers an exceptional opportunity.
by amendments making wool free ana
relatively decreasing both the specific
and al vHlOrem duties on WOODEN goods,
to benefit immensely the WOODEN mann
~facturcrs by giving them free access to
the supplies OF wool of various quail
ties, such as all other competing mann
featuring countries cEiov, and by re-
ducing thus without injury to manufac-
turcr3 the cost of their goods to thcjn
and to The consumers. while leaving sur
Gcient protection. With free raw ma
t%eriais, the tax ON imports of competing
goods would be almost entirely for the
protection of labor: and as free raw ma.
tcrials would greatly increase consump-
ton, there would b. an increased de,
mand for labor.
Neither is it true that no harm has
come 10 consumers 10y The law of 1890.
In the first place, the increased cost of
wool, as compared with prices in Eu-
rope, has forced the usc of cotton aud
Other @iJltrrmtS to ~ great and M
usual extent: and, secondly if wooden
good, have iYt advanced they might
have been lower but for the duties up
wool. There j. no question among rlau.
ufacturcl, HAT the act at 1850 WIS ~.
tended II advance prices, nor that it
was well calculated 10 do 50 to tn" o.
tent that consumers could afford.
The almost universal fan in prices
was caused IN very small degree. if a.
al. 10y th" tnriif act of 1880. The tru-
mcndotls lose, IN the Argentine R,pu1
lie AID elsewhere, IN" failure Of the Bar
ings, tn" di,tru,t caused 10y silver lc~is-
lalinn, the low price Of cotton il the
south on account of aG ,0orupuS crop.
tn" fdilnrr of crops in She north an.
west prior To- 1891. causing duil trade
and reduced consumption. are the priu,
rlpal causes that brougnt distress ana
! ,aiiin& prices.
What those manufacturers and wool
growers who arranged the wool schedule
with he intention Of increasing prices
--.