San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1896-03-12

can enjoy Tree trade by paying
the same high price, which Eng
land pays for it.
Under a free trade system, all
foreign raw material as well as
manufactured fabrics would come
in free Of duty, and our customs
houses would, in consequence be
closed. We would then be COM
PEELED to raise $400,000,000 of reve-
nue. annually, by direct tax,
which according to the constitu-
ton, would have to be apportioned
among the several states agreeably
to wealth and population. The
pro rata OF Texas would not fall
under $l5,0O0,O00 annually, which
would be levied and collected
pretty much as the county and
state taXis at present collected, but
with far more promptness and
vigor. The people owe 1t
to themselves to look at
both sides of this question
and to put theory clean to one
side where it conflicts with COM
mon sense. The collection Of $780,
100000 annually, for national reve-
nue. by direct tax on property,
would so enrsge the people as to
incline them to lynch every free
trader in the length and breadth
OF the union. The old adage says
when poverty enters the door,
love flies out Of the house through
the window" and just so when
you take money out Of a mans
purse, it knocks all the free trade
foolishness clean out of him.
1t was the free trade foolishness
which induced a democratic con-
gress to place imported wool on
the free list, and yet to impose a
duty on manufactured goods, to
placate manufacturers. In other
words, they robbed and ruined the
sheepmen, but although wool was
placed on the free list, they levied
duty on wooden goods. Accord
ing to the report made to the Sec
rotary of agriculture, on January
|, 1896, the total number of sheep
in the United States was 80, 29S, 1888,
and if these averaged six pounds
of wool apiece, annually, the pro-
duction of wool would be 229, 1922
69S pounds. The sheep industry
was ruined by the Wilson tariff
bill. The sheep men Of Texas were
ruined, and ruined by their own
party. But free trader told me
placing wool on the free list had
enabled the masses to buy clothes,
cheaper than they ever had done
in the past, and that the loss sus-
tanned by the sheepmen should cut
no figure at all, since clothes had
been SO greatly cheapened. This
cheapening Of clothes, so much
harped on by the free traders, was
apparent, not real. The quality of
the clothes has shamefully dete-
riorated. The present cheap
clothing is mostly shoddy and
very poorly made up also.
The following extract from the
Farm, Field and Fireside" knocks
on the head the pretence that free
wool has made cheap clothes:
ain 1892 the imports of shoddy
to the United States were only 300,-
600 pounds. During 1895 we i'm
ported 2O,74S,10S pounds Of this
rag-made stuff. 1t came in free.
In 1892 our government derived
100000 OF revenue from the 300,-
600 pounds imported. We find the
figures in the Inter Ocean. 1t
seems, then, that we now use this
meanest stuff for clothing, destroyed
our wool industry, deprived the gov
eminent OF the revenue, endanger
the health of our people and get
absolutely no advantage in return.
Prices OF clothing for those buying
OF the retail dealer remain substan-
TALLY the same"
This extract is brimful OF food for
reflection. Why place shoddy on
the free list, when justice to the
consumers demanded that it
should have saddled with duty
that would have effectually pre-
pented its importation. 1t is a
fraud on the part of any manufac-
turer to use shoddy in his goods.
We have crippled the growth OF
wool in our country by placing
foreign wool on the free list, and
all the benefit we have reaped
from this sport Of free trade is the
privilege OF buying shoddy made
clothes for substantial cloth.
HOME INDUSTRY.