New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-12-23
WOOL-GROWERS' MEMORIAL.
REASONS GIVEN FOR THE DEMAND THAT
THE TARIFF BE REVISED.
npAr-r OF A BILL SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS-
EVEN THE MKINLEY LAW SAID ~
HAVE BEEN INADEQUATE.

=, DRAFT OF A Bill. SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS-
EVEN THE MKINLEY LAW SAID TO
HAVE BEEN INADEQUATE.
ley TELEGRAPH To THE rRIBuNE1
Washington, Dec 22.-At conference he'u III
Washington early this month OF the Natiohai
Association Of Wool Growers and others IL was
agreed to present to Congress memoriai ASK
ing for protective duties on wool. This memorial
together with statistics and other matter prih'eu
nv order Of the Senate, makes volume OF 26o
pages. as Senate Miscellaneous Document NO
y First Session of the LIvth Congress" In
this document is contained the draft or wool
tariff bill which Congress is asked to pass, pro-
yiding for duties Of II cents pound, uhwasheu'
on classes 1 and of woods, including China
woods and eight cents on class s. onit'i"s
the so-caled skirtlng clause Of the tariff act OF
1890 1t provides for a duty on raw cotton vi
two cents a pound. The memorial had the
unanimous approval of all who took part IN the
conference. In the opinion of Judge Lawrence,
president of the Wool Growers Association the
tariff act Of 1890 contained three fatal and ruin
Gus defects:
IN The provision known as the "skirting
clause" the effect OF which was to reduce 'ie
protective benefits Of the prescribed duties by
tended by the law of II cents pound on I'M
washed merno, which was In fact only SIN
cents and even less on Territory wools and 90
rho protective benefits of 80 cents intended by the
law on secured merno, which was only 1879
cents. Such low duties are in the estimation ol
Judge Lawrence ruinous to American wool
growing.
when the Mckinley bill was passed. Judge
Lawrence said to-day, "the effect Of the skirting
cIause' was not understood by wool-growers nor
generally in Congress- and the protective Dement'S
Intended to be given by those who voted FOR the
bin were In a large measure defeated by another
defect-the ad vaorem duties on class WOODS
The original bill az reported provided Tor spec'hc
duties The change to ad valorem duties was
secured by carpet manufacturers ihlS
feature Of the law operated ruinously TO WOOL
growers by Increasing immensely the importance
of class 3 woods, which, TO a large extent were
used In the manufacture Of clothing goods mus
suppanting the use OF merlno woods ana the iohs
woods of the mutton breeds of sheep Inc RUIN Oh
the ad yalorem duties was immensely aggravated
by the unforeseen, unexpected vast imports VI
China woos-a source of supply OF very recent
date so that In the fiscal year 1895 the enormous
quantity Of 26,0S9,41s pounds were imported al an
import price of only 5.l5 cents per pound, and
than 40 per cent in securing were equal to ana
displaced 46 S0O,O 900 pounds of ordinary uhwasheu
| merno. and the immense increased imports OF
those third-class wools exceeded In quantity
those of both other classes combined at unprece-
dentedly low prices. . ..
"In addition to the defects in the law itself,
its protective purpose was In large measure
| defeated by conditions arising since the law
was passed One the decline III the prices
of woods all over the world, caused % in part
nv a vast Increase of sheep and CD in less
degree by the general decline in nearly all
values as a result of the gold standard OF val
ues BY reason of the combined operation OF
these causes the Mckinley act failed to accom-
psh the purpose intended by it, Under IL
prices Of woods constantly declined and the IN
| evitable result would soon have been failure
to secure prosperity to American sheep nus
bandry Even in Texas, where the cost OF
growing wool Is as low, If not less than IN
| any other State. sheep declined in numbers
from 42Sl ,Sl2 in 1890 to 2S59269 In 1891 ana ."
| December 81 1894, the number was only 2,5eo,-
THE rates of duty asked for in the me-
| mortal as those deemed absolutely necessary TO
secure fair prices for wool are spoken OF as
| follows: l. The rates much less than
! those Of the act Of 1867. under which wool
| growers and manufacturers prospereh more
| than under any other law. 2. Any less duties
| will not secure fair prices for woods or give
sheep husbandry prosperity. B. Wooi-grow-
| ers have not asked duties expecting to secure
| less That would be uncandid. 4. Wool-grow-
| ers are the best judges OF what they need. as
| manufacturers are of what they need
There was another defect in the law of 1890
| not generally understood by wool-growers and
| not generally. if at ALL by members of Con-
| gress who voted for the bill-the failure to
| make a provision to meet the light shrinkage
| in securing of Australian woods, as compared
| with other merno woods of all or nearly all
| other countries including our own. That is
| pointed out in the memorial, and the fifth para
| graph of the proposed draft of wool tariff
| bill found In the volume Is presented with y
| view to remedy this defect. The possibility OF
| a veto by the President has been extensively
| urged to dssuade Congress from carrying out
| the wishes Of the people for adequate protect
| I've duties The fear of this cannot justify Con-
| gress in the failure to perform acknow-
| edged duty on it's part. Besides this, the
| Presidents message of December 3. 1895, is I'M
| derstood to declare in effect a purpose to CO.
| operate with Congress in giving to the coun-
| try needed revenue legislation. and a purpose
| to defer to the wishes Of that body as to the
| mode Of raising It,"