West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1892-11-24
TARIFFON GOAT HAIR
THE A7euEClTY AND MJusTlce OF
tr EXPOSED.

huty of Twelve Ccnts round Ira
posed Cp"n -" Article tho Cow n,sTcIaI
Value or which L. ia, Two Cents-A
SiueNd scheme.
Judge Gray. Of tho United STATES sr-
Prcne court. has just sustained theaction
ofCollector Beard OF Boston. ilr classify.
nS common goat hair with second class
WOOL and making il dutiablo therefore
NJ twelve cents per pound.
La commenting ON this decision The
American Wool and Cotton Reporter,
edited by u moderate prUtcctiouist. says
in its issue of Sept. -:
"Ot course the court did not consider
whether this duty of 500 10 900 per cent
upon the pauper goat hair of Bombay or
RUSSIA ~ absurd or the reverse. The
coOrt simply decided that under the
phIascology of the Mckinley bill. all
goat hair comes within the provisions of
class of the wool schedule. and il
therefore dutiable at twelve cents nor
pound. Under tho tariff law which was
IN force previous to the passage of the
Mckinley act this goat hair was free of
duty.
"As the law reads, the hair of n prirni-
tive Russian or Bombay goat. worth two
cents per pound, is dutluhle at twelve
cents per pound. while the wool Of a
Irimi; i've sheep at 32 per cent. al valorcln
might S;t III at three cents per pound or
less.
THE supreme court las decided upon
TIE exact reading of the law. and it has
reached decision that must be con
ceded as correct 10y every person who in
tcrprets the law IA it stands. and not ~,
IL hquld be from commercial or eco.
nonlical standpoint.
The fact that the law imposes n dutv
ar twelve cents per round upon an nrti-
Gle the commercial value Of which i,
from two u three cents per pound. and
winch mas heretofore come in free CT
CUT, has no bearing upon the question.
ne hchlnley schedule is rrplete wi n
these Inconsistencies. and a close study
"t the measure and the methods EN-
Iioyed IN constructing il will show that
lucse seemlng absurdities and riliculors
features lid not get in by chance. bpt
were clcverly devised schemes OF men
who knew what they wanted aud wcre
Eot sorupGlou3 in reaching for it. Ana
1T Is this feature OF the Mckinley lin
that has cast Odium upon il ami has cost
The Republican party u largo number Of
voters"
II seems absurd TO talk about twelve
cents per pound duty on common goat
lair, and yet this Is the law and there is
10 escape from it,
The ONO wool growers have gained
their point, but we full TO see where II
can benefit them in tho slightest. IL ia
hardly probable that they contemplate
establishing common goat industry.
nor Ii IL at all probable that the
exclusion of foreign goat hair will
sppreciably increase the demand for
wOoi--certainly not domestic wool
IL Is hardship which falls heavily
Hpon carpet manufacturers, and also
rpon consumers OF low grade Garrett
Tugs. AMI H. Of no material benefit To any
one. 4 duty of twelve cents per pound
on goat hair IL nOngensical; il means alb
tolute prohibition. aud that j, what tbe
trainers Of that portion of the tariff law
simed at
ii IS not surprising that. understand
lnS as II does how the WOOL schedule
was concOcted, The American Wool end
Cotton Reporter, rrotcctionist though p
j., has come out ia favor Of free wool
s"d dares 20 say that the Mckinley bin
" not perfect.