Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1892-10-27
SPRINCER'S ERROR.
Ignorance of Bounding Bill" on the
Wool Question.
Mr.. Justices Statement.
The Mckinley Bill Knocked I'm
ported Shoddy Out.
American Wool Growers More Pros
porous Than ANY of Their
Foreign Brethren.
Mr.. Justices Statement.

say that Congressman Springer, in a
recent speech, stated that the tables
and quotations OF foreign and Ameri-
can prices contained in the wool cir
culars of Justice, Bateman & Co. of
Aug. 50 and Sept. 1 are incorrect and
without foundation in fact. In reply
to this Mr.. Justice has the following
to say:
The wool circulars alluded to are
those which give the quotations side
by side of Ohio medium in the United
States and Australasian medium of
the same quality and condition in
London. the time that the tariff law
went into effect in 1868, up to and in
1891, showing that the aver
age price received for wool of the same
quality in the tree wool market fLon-
don during all of that period averaged
81 per cent. less than the price paid in
the United States for the same kind of
American wool under protection.
The quotations for domestic wool
which, he says, are incorrect, are TAX
en- from Mr.. Springer's own report of
the Ways and Means Committee to
"a, report No. Sol. Weassumed that
Mr.. Springer's figures were correct, and
never questioned their accuracy, as
they were furnished by him as chair
man of the Ways and Means commit
tee of the ehouse of Representatives; and
this ought to be, and therefore has
been, the best authority. The London
prices were obtained from the pub
lished quotations of Jan. 1, 1892, of
Messrs. Windeler & Co., of London,
England, and are prepared by them
for the London market without re-
gard to any political use that might
be made of them in the United States.
These London quotations of the
Messrs. Windeler, which we use, are
by those of Messrs. Helmuth,
Swartz e Co.. OF London, Messrs. Bux-
ton, Ronald g. Co., of London, and
also by the Bradford Observer, of
Bradford, England, the one newspaper
that is recognized throughout the mer-
camille world as authority on matters
relating to wool and manufactures
thereof.
Mr.. Springer says that, to show the
utter unreliability of this table, the
figures of which are his own, he needs
but to refer to the fact that American
prices between 1868 and 1872, before
specie payments were resumed in this
country, are given in American cur
rency then deprecated. Ohio medium
wool brought ~ cents in the United
States in 1879 because of the protec.
tive tariff, which duties had to be paid
in gold, which at that time was at a
premium and which premium was
equivalent to so much protection
This was at time when the Austral
asian wool grower was getting less than
32 cents for wool In London, as against
~ cents under protection here for the
same quality. The 40 cents addition
nj price which the protected American
wool grower received over and above
that which the Australasian WOO
it not? If not for the tariff, why
would the London price of 32 cents
not have been the American price in
stead of ~ cents for the latter? Was
it not the protective tariff, increased
by the premium on gold, that mad
the difference? At all events, thes,
were the facts.
Ohio medium wool in 1872, accord
ing to Mr.. Springer's figures furnished
to congress, was selling at ~ cents
here, but the same wool in London a
that time was worth less than 80 cts.
according to the quotations OF every
wool circular and market report which
we have quoted. The London quota
tlons which Mr.. Springer objects tt
were merely republished by us, yet Mr.
Springer tells the wool-growers OF Hi
nois tn at the republication by us O
the best authorities in the wool mar
kets of the world discredit our firm
and, if he is correctly reported, h
further states that we knew them t.
be untrue when they were published
In reply to this statement Mr.. Justic
said he had ample proofs to back n
the statements made in the circular
AS to the statement of Mr.. Syringe
that according to the official record
protection did not protect the woo
growers, he suggested that the col
gresham submit the matter to tn
wool growers themselves. He ais
asked what, if not protection, cause
the wool clip of the United States t
increase 100 per cent. between 1S7
and 1884. Continuing, thereby say
Relating to the circular of Sept.
Mr.. Springer states that in referrir
to his bill we say that if passed int
law it would largely increase the in
ports ofshoddy. Hefurther says ths
the bill which he introduced fixed
duty of 25 per cent. ad valorem upo
shoddy. Under the law of 1883 I'll
duties upon shoddy, mungo, flock
waste, etc., was 10 cents per poun
Under that bill there were imported
1889 over 100000 pounds of the
articles. The Mckinley law increas'
: the duty on shoddy to 80 cents p
pound, and in the first full year und
that bill theimports of shoddy almo
ceased, they having fallen off SO p
cent. There is little or no shoddy il
ported under the present McKinl
law. The Springer bill placed the du
on shoddy at 25 per cent. ad valore
and as the average value of shoddy
Europe is about z cents per pound al
25 per cent. duty on shoddy valued
z cents would be under 2 cents ?
pound. The Springer bill, therefor
proposes to take over % cents Z
mound off of the present duty
shoddy, and for what purpose?
N there is no shoddy now imported the
eau oc pub JIG OcJSSS -
duty from 80 cents to 2cents and th
object can only be to stimulate it's j
portation. Now what is shodd
Shoddy, as is well known to most p'
pie, is wooden rags ground up and ct
verted as near as possible TO the OF
e inal condition of raw wool, and is us
as a cheap substitute for wool. ]
rags are gathered up from the quit
hospitals and wherever else they C
:. be found. The ragpickers of Euro
~ are a numerous class, and a famil
y class to those who go abroad. Z
)" clothing of those who die OF infectie
diseases is gathered it and shipped
rags to London or Hamburg to