The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1892-10-20
Pe.ir,ochn.

bh4A ~ AVpAAS9 W ~ tG
with the times, can easily verify this
statement. The following queries can
therefore be p~erlinently put 10 Mr..
Springer:
IL, as you say, tariff laws do not pro-
tect the wool.grower, why is it that
New York, Michigan and Wisconsin
three.quarters to full blood merino
neeces arc worth % cents in Philadel-
phia, Now York and Boston, and simi-
lar wool only I2 cents at the same time
in London? The price OF Nov York,
Michigan and Wisconsin fine feeces
must fall 70 cents per pound If your
free WOO! bill becomes q law and re-
moves the tariff difference between cur
rent prices OF these woods here and tho
prices OF similar woods in London. Why
is it that tieeces shorn from Shropshire
sheep in Canada arc selling there I'M
washed ut II cents, and the same woods
grown in the United States sre bringing
% cents and upwards in Philadelphia
under the McKinleylaw2 Under your
free wool bill what is to prevent the
woods OF our growers from falling from
ovcr 25 cents, the present price here, to
L. cents, the present price in Canada?
AN ABSURD Conclusion CORRECTED.
You state that when high tariff de-
creases wool importations, less native
woods arc used, and their price is thus
depressed" The absurdity OF this as
ID
scrtion Is equalled only by its evidence
Of ignorance- There is no wool grown
in the United States that cannot be
used without admiXture with foreign
wool, your unsupported assertion to the
contrary Notwithstanding, and every
pound OF imported wool displaces that
much of domestic growth; hence if
wool importations decrease, more, and
not less, native woods would be used
and their price in all probability would
be increased.
You make the remarkable statement
that the reduction in the duties upon
The imports of shoddy, as proposed by
the Springer bill, would not stimulate
the importation OF shoddy; in answer
TO this we call your attention to the fact
that under the tariff law OF 1883, when
the duty upon shoddy was only 10 cents
per pound, the imports in 1888 OF shod-
DIV, mungo, flocks, waste, ETC., was near
" S,500,000 pounds; and Tor the first
fnlI fiscal wear under the Mckinley law,
which increased the duty from 10 cents
to 80 cents per pound, the imports oil
shoddy, including mungo, waste, locks
and ali these adulterants, fell oil 80 per
cent, and that no shoddy is now i'm
ported under the Mckinley law, as that
law placed a prohibitive duty upon
shoddy, while your bill proposes to re-
yiye and stimulate the importation of
shoddy by reducing the present Nc.
Kinley duties of 80 cents to less than 2
cents per pound.
shoddy sells in English as low as
lid. per pound, or about three cents in
American currency. The Springer
duties OF % per cent. on such shoddy
would be only three quarters of one
cent per pound as against the present
prohibitory duty Of thirty cents rer
pound in the Mckinley bill. 1t is es-
timated that many millions of pounds
OF shoddy are sold for these figures.
Would not your proposed reduction Of
twenty-nine and a quarter cents per
pound in the duty stimulate the i'm.
portation Of shoddy?
IMPORTS OF sHoDDY PRACTICALLY ROB
BITRD.
The average value of shoddy abroad is
under Z cents per pound, which, added
to the 80 cents per pound duty under the
Mckinley bill, makes the present i'm
ported cost 81 cents per pound. Your
free.wool bill proposes a duty OF only %
per cent. on shoddy, an average duty OF
less than 2 cents per pound, which
would mako the imported cost under
@ cents per pound, or only about one
quarter the present cost.
Your lack of knowledge Of the sub
iect is nowhere more apparent than in
your statement that 'ft is preposterous
10 assert that our American manufac-
turers would import shoddy and pay a
duty OF % per cent on it when they
could import wool free of duty" How
could this be the case when, under
your bill, shoddy could be imported at
a cost OF 8 cents per pound, duty paid,
against free wool at ascoured cost OF 81
cents per pound, and for which, to a
certain extent, it can be substituted?
Your bill, discriminating as it does to
the extent f21 cents per pound against
pure wool, and in favor OF shoddy,
would invite to this country such an
avalanche OF shoddy that, based on the
statistics Of the use OF it in Europe, we
might. in each year, import from 90
100000 to 60,000,000 pounds, which
would displace more than one-half OF
the pure wool contained in the whole
clip of the United States. Wool is
cheaper in England than in any of
the great manufacturing countries
Shoddy. was invented and is now pro-
duced and used there to an extent else.
where unknown, which disposes oil
your argument that free wool, and con-
~sequently cheap wool, prevents the use
Of shoddy.
on page II in report No. SOL Of the
WAYS and meant committee you state
that the number of sheep dwindled in
the states east OF the Missouri and Mis-
sigippi rivers, and showed a falling Off of
more than one-half during the twenty
four years in which a high tariff upon
wool was in force. You endeavor thus
70 create the impression that the wool
clip OF the United States had decreased,
at a time when it was rapidly increas-
inc. by selecting a few older wool grow
ing sections east OF the Mississippi
river. which sections were heavily
drawn upon to stock the territories west
Of the Mississippi river. You would
lead the voters OF the United States to
believe that wool growing was decreas-