The Columbus journal., 1896-01-29

the reduction the tariff act OF Oct. /,
1890. known % the Mckinley law, was
passed, intended by congress to give
''full and adequate protection to the
wool industry" The bill a originally
reported from the committee ON ways
and means by its chairman, Mr.. Nc
Kiuley. was much more protective than
the bill as finally passed into the act Of
1890.
One of the notifications of the orig
inal bill was made at the urgent de-
mand Of few, and only few, Of the
carpet manufacturers of Philadelphia.
But the bill and the law as enacted
contained three fatal and ruinous de-
fectA
The first was the provision known as
the "skirting clause" the effect Of
which was in practice to reduce the
protective benefits of the prescribed du-
ties by nearly one-haf.
When the Mckinley bill was pending.
and as it finally passed. the effect Of the
"skirting clause" was not generally un-
derstood by wool growers. though in the
debates before the senate finance COM
mittee it was pointed out. In practice
the protective duty intended by the law
Of II cents per pound Oh unwashed me-
rinO is, in fact, only 6 cents and even
less ON territory woods, and the protect
i've benefit of 33 cents intended by the
law ON secured merinO is only S3H
cents.
But the real purpose Of the wool tar
iff provision of the Mckinley act, and
the protective benefits intended thereby
to be given. alike by Mr.. Mckinley and
by those generally who voted for the
bill, were in a large measure defeated
by another defect-the ad valorem duties
ON class woods.
The original bill as reported provided
for specific duties; the change to nd va
lorem duties was secured by some carpet
manufacturers. as stated. This feature
Of the law operated ruinously to wool
growers by increasing immensely the
imports of class 8 wOols. which to q
large extent were used in the manulac-
ture Of clothing goods. thus supplanting
the use Of meriNO woods and the long
woods of the mutton breeds Of sheep.
The ruin Of the ad valOrem duties was
immensely aggravated by the unfore-
seen, unexpected vast imports Of China
wools-a source OF very recent supply.
There was third defect in the law
not generally understood by wool grow
ers-probably not generally. if at all.
by members of congress who voted for
the bill-the failure to make q provision
to meet the light shrinkage in securing
Of Australasian woods, as compared with
other merino woods Of all or nearly all
other countries. including our own.
In the memorial will be found the
draft of three bills for the consideration
Of congress:
One intended to embody the tariff pro-
visions understood to be asked for in the
memorial as those deemed absolutely |
necessary to secure fair prices for wool |
and secure success for sheep husbandry.
One In aid of instruction in textile |
industries.
One intended as a temporary expedi-
ent In case the bill deemed necessary |
should be met with q veto.
The rates are much less than those Of |
the act of 1867. under which wool |
growers and manufacturers prospered |
more than under any other law.
Any lees duties will not secure fair |
prices for woods or give sheep husbandry
prosperity.
WoolgyoweTs have not asked duties
expecting to secure less. That would be
uncandid.
WOolgrowers are the best judges Of
what they need as manufacturers are of
what they need.
WOolgrowers will not falter in their
purpose by unexpected obstacles thrown
in their way, but will in all proper
methods urge the justice Of their re-
quests. The following is from the pro-
ceedings of the house of representatives
Dec. 8, 1895, as found in Tho Congress
sional Record, page 81:
Mr.. Danford-Mr. Speaker, ask
unanimous consent to present q memori-
al from the National WOolgrowers'
association of the United States and
others asking the passage Of an act pro-
viding for protective duties on wool
and for other purposes. l ask that the
same may be printed and referred to the
ON ways and means when ap-
pointed.
''Mr. McMillin-DOes the gentleman
propose to have simply the memorial
printed or the accompanying bundle Of
papers which we see in front of us?
'Mr. Danford-Just the memorial
and the papers accompanying it.
mi. McMillin-It is pretty volumi-
nous document, it seems to me, to go
into The Record.
"Mr. Danford-I did not ask that it
20 into The Record.
"The Speaker-It is subject to the
objection of any member Of the housA
"4r. Crisp-I object.
"Mr. McMillin-The gentleman from
Georgia NJ. Crispl objecta
"Mr. Danford-It is not my purpose
10 have it printed in The Record.
''The Speaker-Ob Objection is made. |.
''Mr. Danfmd-Then withdraw the
The following is from The Congress
'ional Record, proceedings Of the SEN
lte. Dec. 10, 1895:
M. Sherman-I present q petition /
Il the National Woolgrowers' associa-
ion and others, with accompanying pa
'ers. praying for protective legislation
or the sheep industry. AZ it is the pe-
ition Of an association Of great national
Importance. move that it be printed :
md referred to the committee On =
nance" !
The motion was agreed to-
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, q
resident Of the National WoolgrowerD' 6
Association.
a Gyh~0A |