The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1895-12-11
Rcyenae From Wool and WoOlens.

rnsal of their circular, lnat tno
members Of an eminent wOol.gath.
nring firm in this city are in favor
of n tariff for revp nue. on the staple
in which they deal, In their eX.
freme sOlicitude over the yawning
Treasury deficit they have con-
rluded that wool is the thing to fill
the gap. But if the Mckinley
duties on wool should be restored
for revenue-the effect would he,
ms experience has shown, to we'll
nigh prohibit the importation OF
the fine heeces which constitute
the bulk Of the wool imports under
the new tariff. AS result, but by
no means the worst, the revenues
from wool would not he of much
account in filling up the yawnine
gulf of ihe Treasury deficit. II
would then appear that the object
of imposing duties on wool is not
revenue, bnt prohibition. This
would he very disappointing, OF
course, to our fellow.citizens en-.
gagged in the wool business, whose
souls yearn for revenue duties on
wool.
AS for restoration Of the Nc
Kinley duties on wOolen fabrics,
the calamity howlers assert that
The new tariff in reducing these
duties One-half has caused double
ihe former importatious of wool
ems. In such case it is manifest
that restoration Of the duties on
woolens would not enhance the
revenue from this source. While
the assertions in regard to imports
of woOlens are grossly exaggerated
as the trade returns show, the in
crease Of revenues from these i'm
ports would not he Of much mo-
ment TO the Treasury. There is no
doubt that the reduction Of the 100
per cent. Mckinley duties to 90 per
cent. and the increased vigilance
of the custom house Oilibials have
much discouraged the smuggling
trade in woolens; so that the in
grease Of these Imports Is more ap
parent than real.
On the whole, it might he well to
let the duties on wool wOolens
alone, for the sake MS well of the
American manufacturers as of the
consumers. This is conclusion
10 which Congress will be likely to
rome before the end of the present
session, 1t is gratifying, Of course,
10 learn from such pre-eminent
authority as the wool firm above
referred to that foreign manufac-
turers were obliged to pay "the
larger portion" of the Mckinley
duties on woOlens for the mere
privilege Of selling them in the
American market! When the
rates Of these duties are consider
'ed, it would have been better for
the foreign manufacturers to have
given their goods away rather than
to have paid the enormous custom
house charges lavied upon them.
From another authority we learn
that the sheep growers of Austria
liza and Argentina paid the "larger
portion of the Mckinley duties on
their small exports of wool TO the
United Statesl The folly of these
foreign sheep raisers is remarkable |
in view Of the fact that the free |
markets Of Europe were open all |
The time for their wool.
The consideration that the for
cign manufacturers and sheen |
growers pay the "larger portion"
Of the duties on woolens and wool !
makes the proposal to restore the
Mckinley tariff on these imports
exceedingly inviting. This is de-
spoi ing the Philistines with ven
geance. But somehow or other
the manufacturers of the United
States entertain the notion that
they are themselves obliged to pay
The duties on their raw materials |
10 the laSt cent until,they car re-
coup the payment from cOsumers
or from the wages Of labor. At the
same time the consumers have Il
notion that they pay every dollar
of The duties on wool aud woolens
in the enhanced cost and inferior
quality Of their clothing, imported
and domestic. In this aspect of
the case restoration of the Me
Kinley duties on these cOmmodi-
ties would hardly he regarded by
the average American citizen us a
very clever or successful attempt
TO despOil foreigners in order to IN
crease the Treasury receipts Of the
United States. Philadelphia Rec
ord.
--.s--------s---s-------s--
LOGAN is not without her aspir-
10, a.. L.. . D