The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1892-08-11
ATARlFE PRINCIPLE REPUoATso.
Something About Wool and How Ameri-
cans are Unjustly Taxed,
lion the ChIcago Herald

II
"As a protectionist,' says Senator
Aldrich, al believe that the United
States cannot afford, having in view the
most rapid development of her great
resources, to levy duty upon articles in
the production of which other coun-
tries have permanent natural advant-
ages" And Representative Funston,
speaking for the Republicans of the
committee on agriculture, lays down a
Republican tariff principle as follows:
Absolute free trade for those things
which we cannot produce in sufficient
quantities to supply our own demands. !"
Senator Aldrich and Representative
Funston are substantially in accord as
to the governing principle. But they
are both opposed to free trade in wool.
They uphold the Mckinley act which
lays duties equivalent to 4S per cent on
clothing woods, 49, per cent on comb
ing woods and 81 per cent on carpet
wools-an average of over 38 per cent
on the three classes. Are they loyal to
Republican principles as formulated by
either of them In upholding these taxes
on imported wool2 Have not other
countries permanent natural advant-
age in the production of woods? Can
ties to supply our own demands?
We can find the answer to these ques-
tions in the statistics of wool produc-
tion and importation compiled or in
dorsed by the chief of the treasury bu-
reau or statistics, a Republican official
appointed by Republican President.
On page 2Oi of the statistical :Ab-
stract" is table from which we learn
that the proportion of foreign wool
entering into domestic consumption
for the past fifty years, In years selected
by the statistician, was as follows: In
1910, 2l.5 per cent; 1850, 1858 per cent;
in 1860, 30 8 per cent; in 1870, 22.7 per
cent; in 1880, 34.9 per cent; in 1890, 27
per cent; in 1891, 308 per cent. The
tables gives the percentages for every
year since 1862, but only for the years
above stated before that time. Since
1862 the percentage has ranged all the
way from minimum of 119 per cent
III 1868 to maximum of 453 per cent
in 1872, five years after the famo ls wool
tariff of 1867 &as framed
During all these fifty years and more
wool growing has had more or less tariff
protection, and the proportion of
foreign wool consumed has been greater
under high than low tariffs. If these
facts do not prove that other countries
have permanent natural advantages"
in the production of wool, and that we
cannot produce enough to supply our
own demands, perhaps Mr.. AidrIch or
Mr.. Funston will be good enough to
state what array of facts would suffice
Mr.. Aldrich tells us that "for twelve
years the average price IN London of a
pound of secured Australian wool has
been 32 cents less than the average
price in the United States of pound
of secured fine Ohio WOOL" the grades
chosen for the comparison being prac.
tically alike. Does not that statement
amount to an admission that Australia
has permanent natural production of
wool? 1t would seem so, especially
when we recall the admitted fact that
the average of wages in Australia is
higher than in the United States. 1t
must be natural advantage" and not
'cheap labor" that makes the price of
Australian wool lower.
In 1890, before the passage of the Nc
Klnley act, we imported l05 40S6iS
pounds of raw wool; in 1891, the year
after the passage of that act, we inn
ported 129 ,308,648 pounds. During the
eleven months of 1892 for which we
have returns, we imported 13S, S,163,0O9
pounds. Ii the June imports were
| equal to the average of the previous
| months of the year, the total for the
year must have exceeded 100000
pounds or about 100000 pounds, per
cent. more than the total for 1890, the
year before the passage of the Mckiu-
ley act.
This fact, with the others stated, all
supplied by Republican statistician,
| ought to satisfy Mr.. Funston and Mr..
Aldrich that we cannot produce all the
wool we want, even under the highest
protection, and that other countries
have a permanent natural advantage, at
least in the production of some grades
or qualities of wool. According to
their own principle, therefore, 1--WE can
| not afford to levy duties" on wool, and
there ought to be absolute free trade
in that article.
But they repudiate their principle
when it comes to the application. They
formulate their principle to account
for their treatment of tea, coffee, sugar,
and some other articles they have put
| on the free list, but when 1t comes to
wool they repudiate 1t utterly. Why
Because the farmer must be fooled, if
possible, and held in line for tariff
which robs him of $40 where 1t holds
out to him the delusive hope of robbing
| other people of 81. The farmer must
be amused with "castles in Spain" In
| order that the manufacturer may have
his IlunU paetlaQ in Scotland