Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-04-26

No. un6erstand and adapt themselves. by
imported breeds and imported nusp5HuIE
this resistiess economic change th5t II
80 loudly heard in demands tnat lectrd,
legislation should stay natural laws ana
save them from the inevitable operation OF
such laws As well might the owners OF
the abandoned IRON furnaces Oh the ~
call on Congress to save them from the
transfer Of iron making centres 10 other
sections where nature has stored more
abundant and avail2oie supphes OF ore
ana other raw materials.
The chief result. therefore, of the pro-
tactiV= legislation OF Congress IN all the
tariffs from 1850 20 lNN. inclusive. mas Deell
TO stint most disaStrously The supply or
Wc0len clothing etc, 10 our people. Win
Cu- producing or allowing healthy ana
ratural development of the manufacturing
industry. II Is a recognized fact that, de-
spite an the protection accorded TO TIM
paraIIeled i'm any other country or In any
prev as era of our own country, and the
he-iuni-C Of which in 1851, 10 1elr credit
be IL said. the manufacturers old not ask
for-taa wool manufacturing industry in
the United States, save, perhaps. In us
carpet making branch has no, kept pace
with the developments OF any other great
industry.
This has not been the fault of the manu-
factur5rs so much as the tariff laws 10
which they have had 10 submit. or which
they have mistakenly helped TO frame. by
which until ths last two years they We're
excluded from The use of twO-thtrds OF the
wool Of the world. or put at great disad-
vantage as 10 prices and range Of selection
as compared with THEM competitors IN
other countries.
One natural result of this false and
absurd system Of protection" Mr..
Wilson points out, has been the resort
Of manufacturers to various inferior
and cheap substitutes for wool, and the
palmiag of on purchasers of fabrics
made largely of these substitutes as all
wool goods The extent to which this
has been carried is unknown TO COnsum-
ers generally, as it is largely practiced
in the making of those goods which the
poor and the uniformed buy, either in
the cloth or as ready-made clothing.
Great skill and ingenuity says Mr..
Wilson, have been developed in max
ing goods so like the genuine as to defy
detection except by experts or on anal
ysis. 1t is we'll known that COW hair
is largely used in carpet manufacture.
Great credit was claimed for the McKin-
ley bill because it raised the duty on
shoddy from ten cents a pound TO thirty
cents a pound a prohibitory duty. But
the bill left the duty on wooden rags,
the material out of which shoddy is
made. at the rate previously prevail
ing. ten cents a pound. One manufact-
urer quoted by Mr.. David a. Wells boast
ed that his 'cheviots were selling like hot
cakes-sixty per cent. shoddy and forty
per cent. Georgia wool (cotton). Yet
the fabric to the unframed looked as
though it were made up in the main Of
thoroughly good wool. In 1891 the Dry
Goods Economist analysed two pieces
Of similar worsted cloths. One piece,
made by a leading Philadelphia firm.
foremost in the advocacy of high and
restrictive duties on the import of wool
the name was given but need not be
mentioned here-sold at prices ranging
from a piece dyed solid black at S1.50,
to fancy weaves from S1.6212 to those
containing silk twist at $1.75,5 was
found 10 contain twenty-eight per cent.
Of wool, which constituted both faces
of the cloth, and seventy-two per cent
of cotton and shoddy in the proportion
of ninety-two and one-half per cent. OF
cotton and seven and one-half per
cent. of shoddy."
1t is pointed out by Mr.. Wilson that
these instances, which are not solitary
ones. show how seldom the poorer con-
sumers could get genuine woollens,
even at high prices, under the duties
of the Mckinley bill, now about to be
restored. and how generally even those
better able to pay were deceived in the
real components in the fabrics they
purchased. They make plain, also, the
interest which many manufacturers
have in opposing free wool and in seek
ing to restrict the Importation of wool
BY the use of cheap adulterants which
deprive the goods of most Of their by
gienic and health-protecting virtue they
can undersell all wool goods sufficiently
to command the general market, while
the skill which might be profitably di-
rected to the production of better and
CHEAPER wooHens is directed to making
limitations that will defy the detection
of the wearer until he faces wintry
blast clad in them.
Moreover, and perhaps most import
ant consideration Of all, these adulter-
ated goods are protected under the
Dingley bill as if they were made entire
" of wool. The compound and cumu-
lative duties of the bill are the same
upon cloths composed in part as upon
those composed wholly of WOOL Mr..
Wilson concludes:
A pound of cloth in the first sample
analyzed by the Economist would pay duty
as follows. Supposiug ITS foreign cost 10 be
ffty-onc cents: First. four times the duty
of a pound of unWdshed WOO of the first
class fOrty-f0ur centS-thiS TO compensate
the manufactures for -he duty paid on the
I imported wool, or Tor the increased price
caused by that duty of the domestic wool
he is supposed TO have used in making the
pound of clo,h-and then. as protection 70
The manufacturer himself. twenjy-one
cents per pound. and i'm addition thereto
twenty per cent. al vaiOr5m. in all seven
ty-fve cents; or. on pound of goods
whose foreign value was hfty-one cents,
a duty of nearly $50 per cent
Now We have seen that in the making
p7Su sUQ J5Im7UguuUW 9Ql QloIo Slql 10
bur twenty-eight per cent. Of wool. the
other ccmponentS being free cotton (GeOr-
feHu
teral of which. rags IS dutabie at ten
cents per pound.