St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-10-01
TO JUSTICE.
Chairman Springer Answers
the Philadelphia Wool
Merchant.
Comparisons Made With In
ferior Foreign Wool by
the Latter.
Mr.. Justice Failed to State
the Whole Truth About
Shoddy.
Protective Tariff on Woods
Disastrous to Grower and
Manufacturer.


dressed large audience at this place
today. He replied to the interview of
Mr.. Justice, member of the firm of
Justice, Bateman & Co.. wool dealers,
of Philadelphia. In reference to this
interview Mr.. Springer said:
SIN speech at Jacksonville. ILL.,, last
Tuesday, L took occasion to expose the
partisan character of so-caIled trade
circulars issued by Justice, Bateman &
Co. wool aud commission merchants, of
Philadelphia. L pointed out the fact
that this firm had in its circular of July
20, 1892. published figures which
purported to give the price of wool of
the same grade and condition III London
and in the United States during the
past twenty-five years, the time covered
by our high protective tariff OH wool.
and that these figures showed that
American wool was worth 81 per cent
more on the average than the same
grade OF wool was worth in London.
his statement then pronounced as
Without Foundation
in fact, and that it was made for polite
al ard partisan purposes. | stated at
jacksonville, and l repeat it, that the
official statistics furnished the commit
tee of ways and means during the last
session by the Republican officials of
the government showed that the same
grade and condition of wool in the
United States had sold for more than
quarter of a cent pound less ON the
average in the United States during the
past twenty-five years than i'll London.
''Mr. Justice, a member of this firm,
has been given large space in the
press reports, Of which L do not COM
plain, in order to refute my statement.
He says the quotations for domestic
wool which he used are taken from Mr..
Sprlnger'S own report of the ways and
means committee to the house of repre-
Sentatlves (see page 81, Report No. 50D.'
This statement is true as to the quota
tlonS of American wool given in MI.
Justices table, as they are substantially
the same as those in my report. But
the quotations with which these figures
are compared are not taken from my
report, but they are compared with quo
tationS furnished by that firm, and not
from any official source"
Misleading Comparison
"Now.I charge that,on the face of the
table of statistics which this firm has
published, it appears that comparison
is made, first. between currency prices
in the United States and gold prices in
this time our currency was deprecated
at one time as high as so per cent: and
second, that the American wool quoted
was washed wool, while the Australasian
wool quoted and compared in price was
New Zealand cross-bred wool in the
grease, and not only in the grease, but
OF all inferior quality, as compared with
the American wool quoted. The tariff
on wool i'll the grease is II cents pound.
and washed % cents, and secured SO
cents, which shows that the legal
ratio of value is that washed wool
is worth SO per cent more than wool in
the grease. Notwithstanding these
facts, this firm of wool dealers publishes
a statement comparing American
washed wool at currency prices in this
country with Australasian wool in the
grease of inferior quality at gold prices
in London.
Does Know the Difference.
''Mr. Justice is pleased to state that
do not know the difference between the
value of soured and greasy woods. I'm
fortunately tor MIR. Justice, / do know
this difference, and he knows it also,
but assumes that those without practi-
cal experience or knowledge of the sub
Ject, as he charges that L am, will
not discover the fraud as it IS
practiced by the comparison of
washed wool with wool in the grease.
He further says that L have
procured my information from sources
as uniformed on technical points as |
am myself. This is a reflection upon
the integrity and capability Of the Off
Gals of the government from whom |
obtained my information. They were
acting upon the responsibility of sworn
officers, and, although Republicans and
prOtectlonIStS, and in favor of maintain
ing the high tariff on wool, they could
not afford to furnish false statistics
even for partisan purposes.
ION the subject of shoddy MIR. Justice
is evaSive and fails to state the whole
truth. The bill which introduced and
which passed the house of representa-
tiveS during the last session, placed all
woods
On the Free List,
and put tariff of % per cent on shoddy.
The Mckinley bill taxed secured wool
65 cents pound. and shoddy. which is
cents pound. Now, if my bill should
become the law, wool would be free and
shoddy would be taxed Is per cent.
Are our manufacturers so anxious to
use shoddy that they would pay 25 per
cent tariff on il, when they could get
pure wool without paying any tariff
whatever?
But the anxiety about shoddy is for
the protection of the American shoddy
mills against competition with shoddy
made abroad. SiXty-one million pounds
of shoddy were consumed in 1890 in the
manufacture of wooden goods in the
United States. and this amount had
cloth producing capacity equal to the
wool product of nearly 100000 sheep.
1t is high protection on wool that Stim-
ulates Shoddy production and consump-
ton in this country. According to the
census report in 1890, American wooden
goods contained only 45 parts of pure
wool to So parts Of cotton, shoddy and
Other Adulterants.
sin some remarks l submitted to the
house of representatives on April last,
l explained fully the conditions which
caused prices Of wool in this country to
be less than the same quality of wool
sold for III London. That speech is
published IN my book on tariff
reform, pages 373 to 3S1. In that
speech L pointed out all the cir
cumStanceS which caused wool to be
depressed III price i'll this country, by
reason of the high tariff OH wool and
WOODEN goods. endeavofed to estab-
ION liN. L"Se eooe iioS "Oot anu 1--we
nue. tariff on WOODEN goods were in the
interest OF the wool grower as well as
the wool manufacturer, and that this
policy was especially in the interest of
the American consumer. 1t was clearly
demonstrated that the experience of the
past quarter of century of high pro-
tective tariffs on wool and wooden goods
has proved the policy to be disastrous
to the wool grower, disastrous to the
wool manufacturer and disastrous to
the American consumers"
PREACHEI& IN TROI1RET