The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1892-10-25
TARIFF ON GOA,THAIR
THE AHsuRoITy AND INJUSTICE OF
1T EXPOSED.

A Duty of Twelve Cents n Pound Inn
posed Upon an Article the Commercial
Value of which Is but Two Cents-A
shrewd scheme.
Judge Gray, of the United States SUI
preme court, has Just sustained the action
of Collector Beard, of Boston, in classify
ing common goat hair with second class
wool, and making it dutiable therefore
at twelve cents per pound.
In commenting on this decision The
American Wool and Cotton Reporter,
edited by moderate protectionist, says
IN its issue of Sept. %:
"Of course the court did not consider
whether this duty of 500 to 500 per cent.
upon the pauper goat hair of Bombay or
Russia is absurd or the reverse. The
court simply decided that under the
phraseology of the Mckinley bill all
goat hair comes within the provisions of
class 2 of the wool schedule, and is
therefore dutiable at twelve cents per
pound Under the tariff law which was
in force previous to the passage of the
Mckinley act this goat hair was free of
duty.
'sAs the law reads, the hair of a primi-
tive Russian or Bombay goat, worth two
cents per pound, is dutiable at twelve
cents per pound, while the wool of a
primitive sheep ut 80 per cent. al valorem
might get in at three cents per pound or
less.
'sThe supreme court has decided upon
the exact reading of the law, and it has
reached q decision that must be con-
ceded as correct by every person who in
terprets the law as it stands, and not as
1T should be from a commercial or eco
nomical standpoint.
1.-The fact that the law imposes duty
of twelve cents per pound upon an arti-
Gle the commercial value of which is
from two to three 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 a close study
of the measure and the methods em-
ployed in constructing it will show that
these seeming absurdities and ridiculous
features did not get in by chance, but
We're cleverly 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 Republican party n large number Of
voters"
It seems absurd to talk about twelve
cents per pound duty on common goat
hair, and yet 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 common goat industry,
nor is it at all probable that the
exclusion of foreign goat hair will
appreciably increase the demand for
wvol-certainly not domestic wool
1t is hardship which falls heavily
upon carpet manufacturers, and also
upon consumers of low grade carpet
ings. and is Of no material benefit to anv
one. A duty of twelve cents per pound
ON goat hair is nonsensical; it means alb
solute prohibition, and that is what the
trainers of that portion of the tariff law
aimed at"
1t is not surprising that, understand
ing as it does how the wool schedule
was concocted, The American Wool and
Cotton Reporter, protectionist though it
is, has come ont in favor of free wool
and dares to say that the Mckinley bill
is not perfect.