Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1892-10-15
THE TARIFF ON GOAT HAIR.
4 rrotectionist Paper Exposes the Iujns.
tice aad Ah>urdity Of It.


ticc aad Ah>urdity Of It,
JUdgc Gray. Of the United States SUI,
rrmc court has jus; sustained the
action u Collector Beard, Of Boston, in
classifying oomman goat hair with
SNoopd class wool and making it duti-
able therefore al - cents per pound,
In commenting on this decision the
American Wool and Cotton reporter
teditei by 4 moderate protectionistl
says in It's issue ~ September -:
'rOf course the court did no: consider
whether this duty Of 500 to 500 per cent
upon the pauper goat hair Of Bombay
" Russia is ah>uri or the reverse, The
court simply decided that under the
~phvaSco,o-y Of the Mckinley bill, all
goat hair comes within the provisions
81 class : III the wool schedule and is
therefore dUt:ablc at u cents per pound.
Under the tariff law which was in
foCce previous 70 the passage Of the Nc
kinley act this goat hair was free of
duty.
As the law now reads, the hair of a
primitive Russian or Bombay goat,
worth , cents per pound, is dutiable at
y cents per pound, while the wool of a
primitive sheep at - per cen al va
loren might get in at ) cents psf pound
or less
The supreme court has decided upon
the exact reading Of the law, and it has
reacl ed a decision that nus be con-
ceded as correct by every person who
int .rprets the law as it stands, and not
rs il should be from a commercial or
{ economical standpoint.
The fact that the law imposes a
duty Of Il cents per pound upon an
article, the commercial value of which
Is from ! to s cents per pound, and
which has heretofore come in free Of
duty, has no bearing upon the question,
The Mckinley schedule is replete with
these Inconsistencies, and n close study
Of the Measure and the methods en-
ployed in constructing it will show
that these seeming abSurditieS and
ridiculous features did not get in by
chance, hut were Gle verify devised
schemes Of men who knew what they
wanted, and were not scrupulous in
reaching for it. And it is this feature
Of the Mckinley bill that has cast
odium upon it, and has cost the repub-
lican party a large number of voters.
1t seems absurd to talk about II cents
per pound duty on common goat hair,
and vet this is the law and there is no
escape from it,
The Ohio wool growers have gained
their point, but We fail to see where it
can benefit them in the slightest. 1t is
hardly probable that. they contemplate
establishing a common goat industry;
nor is it at all probable that the exclu-
sion Of foreign goat hair will apprecia-
bly, increase the demand for wool, GER
tainly not domestic wool. 1t is a hard
ship which falls heavily upon carpet
manufacturers and also upon consum-
ers of low grade carpetings, and is of
no material benefit to any one, duty
OF IL cents per pound on goat hair is
n~onsenSical; it means absolute prohibi-
ton, and that is what the trainers of
that portion of the tariff aimed
1t is not surprising that, understands
ing as it does how the wool schedule
was c%Oncocted, the American Wool and
Cotton Reporter, protectionist though
it is, has come out in favor of free wool
and dares to say that the Mckinley bill
is not perfect.