The Somerset reporter., 1892-02-25
About FREQ wool.


In order that the views Of wooden man
ufacturers Of New England might be hal
regarding the policy Of re-opening the
tariff question on wool and incidentally
that on woolens as suggested BY Tie
Springer bill, the Boston Journal Of Com
merce addressed Inquiries to large mum
Der OF wooden manufacturers a. follows
Are you satisfied with the present tariff
on wool2
Do you think that any portion Of 1t
should be meddeds and, If so, in what
particular;
DO YOU favor any modification Of the
wool tariff or its repeal by congress at the
present timer Give reasons for your
opinion.
Replies were received from 81 n anu
facturers and of this number 81 said
emphatically let the tariff on wool alone
3 were in favor of free wool and one was
not satisfied with the present tarti but
did not favor modification by the present
congress.
Among those who answered the inqulr.
les OF the journal Of Commerce were
some well known wooden manufacturers
of Name
Mayo & Son Of Foxcroft, say I'VE
are perfectly satisfied with the present
tariff on wool"
The Plscataquls Wooden Co, Of Gull
ford say Let the tariff on wool alone
and give the law as II now exists a fair
trial"
Brown Manufacturing Company Of
Dover and Forest Mills Co, of Brighton
depreciate any change at this time.
Our own townsman, Lewis AndtrsoD,
E.q., lifelong wooden manufacturer
who has made the situation study for
years and who ia as well posted as any
man In Maine on the wooden business
throughout answers the questions at
considerable length and with printed ar
gument as follows;
Your favor in relation to the wo d duties.
received. Replying 10 your first question
Yes, under existing conditions; to your
| NtCDuut dDhhtIt NDL now ana 10 YOUR
| third, | answer, emphatIoally, No.
| Ever since the tariff revision of 1883 our
woclen manufacturers have had uphill
work to maiLtain their hold on our markets
because of foreign competition, in which
we were handicapped, principally, if not
entirely, by the lower wages paid abroad.
and which has been shown time and again
| 10 be of the greatest consequence. Indeed
| It is seldom now that one hears the state
ment made, even by sanguine tariff reform
eIs, that we require no protection, but, on
| the contrary, II Is generally conceded that
we need pr election in our own markets,
| the only question being as to the nee essary
| extent. 1t IL true we have some who do
| not think 1t necessary aud some who
| from principle, as they say, object to
protection altogether, but these are rare
exceptions, Tor most of our Democratic
friends pose as favoring protection, while
actively engaged under various gu III
trying to WORK its destruction.
| For q series Of years we have had almost
lncessant tinkering and talking of tariff,
and every one who has given reasonable
| degree Of attention to what has been going
on knows that the unct rtainty of liked aud
| permanent legislation in tariff has caused
much unrest and lack of confidence among
dealers III merchandise affected by the tar
III. In fact, pending the debates In con
gress and the senate. on Morrisons bilI |
the Mills bills, the Randall bill and the |
Mckinley bill, it was 30 demoraliZlng to
business that many ardent protectionists
would have gladly exchanged the uncer-
tainty and doubt for free trade pure and
simple, believing that free trade for
period would be one of the best educator
tfal. al
years would secure to this generation the
81 stem Of protection beyond doubt or dan.
ger, for the reason that it would not be
safe to talk free trade In the face of those
who had seen and felt its blighting effects
During the consideration of the McKin
ley bill every facility was Afforded the PEG.
pie to present their views on the tariff be fore
the ways and means committee, aud the
opportunity was embraced very generally
and 1t Ii safe to say that almost every IN
dustry Affected had its hearing before that
committee, and that famous measure, the
Nick nley bill. was the result Of the most
thorough investigation and careful con
siderativn, and 1t is nothing more than
lair to assume that it WAS as FULLY in har
mony with The pulse of the industries af-
fected and the country at large, as any
,ariH measure could be; for it is utterly |
| impossible to produce u tariff bill that will
| please all int rests or all sections, or be
Tree from Objectionable features of some
kind. Such being the case. and the law
has only been in force about sixteen
months, during which time the country
has certainly not shown any symptoms; of
etrogressivn that can ,ruthfully be charg-
ed to the Mckinley bill, and this notwith-
standing the direiul predictions of its
enemies. By their impotence to attack
the tariff (for they are evidently impatient
to do so, though somewhat lacking III
courage) the Democrats show they are
afraid to give it a trial, because they know
if 1t Is continued the effect would com
pleley expose the mpositions by which
they gained in the last general elections.
While the Mckinley bill was under con
sderation the wool growers and manufact- |
urers had several meetings, and all branch |
es were represented by many of the most |
intelligent aud influential representative
III, II, and after long and laborious atten-
ton bestowed on the wool duties, the pres |
ent schedule was deemed and recommended |
as the best they could devise, and most
satisfactory to the several interests, aid |
there is no new reason that | know of, |
Why they are not al desirable now as they |
were then; hence they are entitled to a
fair trial and to be let alone long enough |
to show by results what they are worth.
know Mr.. Springer and Others have
called attention to the fact that the price
of wool is not so high AZ it was year ago
and that more is being imported, which
facts have not been caused by the Nc Kin
ley bill AT all. The price of wool has fall
en- to much greater extent abroad than |
it has with us, which rather goes to prove
that the additional duty has assisted in
maintaining the price here, and the fact
that there have been larger importations of
wool, coupled with the other significant
fact that more machinery has been running
more hours in our mills than for some
lime previous, goes to prove that we need |
more wool under sufficient protection.
Again, az protectionist, | object on |
| principle to class legislation, which |
would not hesitate to brand AS a law denying |
protection to so important an industry u,
wool growing, while demanding it for so
many others.
| | fail also, to reconcile with my Ideas
of justice or consistency, the fact that
men ask protection for their own partcu
| lar in ustres, while in the same breath,
30 to speak, denying 1t to others whom
they ask to protect them. 'Oh. con sist-
ency, thou art a jewel
Another reason why l am opposed to
any change in the wool duties is because
the agitation for this change is led and
forced upon the country by men who are
opposed to the protective system, and, with
most of them, their chief object is to DIES
troy that system by dividing the protected
Industries against each other. Heretofore
they tavelfailed in efforts and, hoping to
t.h ha Itoh b, ha aIlur