Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1893-01-06
THE WOOL INDUSTRY
FREE RAW MATERIAL THE TRUE
BASIS OF PROTECTION.

teal Tarlfs NIaking-Duties on Imported
Wool Are Wrong Because They Have
Not Increased Production.
The Dry Goods Economist on Dec. 10
began a series of articles on practical
Tariff Making" to show, as it stated edi
torially, "what would be needed to place
our manufacturers upon substantial
equality with their European competi-
tors" The first paper restates the argu-
ments in favor of free wool. Some of the
facts are interesting to many not con-
nected with the wooden industry.
Since 1864 the duty on unwashed wool
has varied from ten to twelve cents per
pound, yielding protection Of about so
per cent. In spite of this duty imports
have steadily increased from 81, $50, 675
pounds in 1867 to 119, 800, $50 pounds in
1891. Nor has the production of wool
increased as rapidly under protection in
the United States as it has increased in
the other countries of the world where
it has had no protection. Since 1860 the
product Of the United States has in
creased from 60,264, 913 to 285,0OO,000
pounds-475 per cent. The increase since
1860 in the other comparatively new
countries of the world has been from
315,000,000 to 1865, 1881 800 pounds-an
average of 534 per cent. The increase in
Australia has been 983 per cent; River
Platte districts, $50 per cent; Cape of
Good Hope, 494 per cent. These three
districts produce two-thirds of the
worlds supply, $685. 3S1 600 pounds.
The writer, Mr.. S. Hawking, then ex-
plains why it is that this country lags
behind. It is because of our poor wool
growing climate and because the duty on
woods has depressed our manufactures
and compelled them to buy less Ameri-
can wool than if they could purchase
freely abroad and make all kinds of fab
RIGS. He discusses the absurd tax on car
pet wools-a tax intended to protect
something that never has nor never will
exist here-the camel, goat and alpaca
industry. He shows how the duties OPP
Grated to raise prices of manufactured
goods here and to give cheap wool to for
eign manufacturers. He thus recapitu-
lates the first article:
1.-THE duties on imported wool are con-
sequently economically wrong.
"First-Because they have failed to
stimulate the growing of wool in this
country in proportion to it's unlimited
pastural resources.
"Second-Because it is a gross injustice
to compel the consumer of goods made
of wool to pay twice over the duty paid
on imported wool in consequence of the
growers inability to produce within so
per cent. as much as the wants of the
country require.
"Third-Because domestic manufac-
turers are prohibited from buying such
woods as are most desirable to their
uses, and are compelled through the tax
on wool to buy such woods as are not
always suitable to their wants and the
requirements of the goods they manu-
facture.
"Fourth-Because domestic manufac-
turers, through being compelled to buy
woods Of light shrinkage, buy the dearest
woods and are oppressed by the competi-
ton of the foreign manufacturer, who is
not hindered by tax on wool from buy
ing the cheapest woods in the market.
"Fifth-Because the tax on wool gives
to wool a fictitious value and renders
the use of inferior substitutes as adulter-
ants question of much easier practice
''For these reasons taxed wool has
been tried and proved a failure. Any
rational system of tariff revision must
therefore have free wool as the basis and
chief factor Of protection to the wooden
industry"
Editorially it is noted that these facts
contrast with President Harrison's re-
cent Tm-hcked- but-rll-stick-to-it high
tariff message, and it is remarked that
the argument for free wool is irresistible.
Why Republicans Buy Elections.
The New York Tribune of Dec. 1S
takes Mr.. Charles S. Fairchild to task
for saving, at the annual dinner of the
New England Tariff Reform league, that
Republican business men had formed a
s'habit of contributing vast sums of
money to buy elections" and to ''under-
mine the foundations Of society,"" The
Tribune asks:
Mr.. Fairchild, do you know why
these business men are willing to con-
tribute to Republican campaign funds?
There's some reason for it, surely. They
don't do it for fun or because they have
no idea of the value of money and are
willing to waste it aimlessly and wan
tonly."