The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-01-07
WOOL-G|ROWERS
HAVE A HEARING
Languishing Industry That
Cries Aloud for
Protection.
Seventy Millions Yearly Spent
Abroad Should Be Kept
at Home.
Sheepmen Who Lose on an Average
$43o Per Annum and Save
So on Clothing.

Comm ittee were continued to-day, raw
wool" being the schedule under consld-
Grafton.
John G. Clark of Washington County,
Pa, a member of the National Wool
growers Association, opened the hearing.
The necessity for protection, he said, was
now apparent. the experiment OF Tree
wool having brought bankruptcy and dis
tress upon many engaged in the wool
growing business. The free wool clause
of the Wilson bill he characterized as a
crime.
William Lawrence of Ohio, President OF
the National Wool-growers' Association,
hoped that the next Congress would give
the wool growers a protection equal TO
that given to the most favored industries.
This country had the requisite climate,
soil and lands to produce the $50, OOO,OOO
pounds of wool OF all kinds used yearly
by the American mills. With adequate
production the sheep stock OF the United
States could within four years be increased
so as to yield all the wool consumed here.
Some $70,OO0,Oo0 was now being paid
abroad each year for wool. Adequate pro-
lection would give American farmers this
sum annually for labor.
He referred to the Wiison-Gorman law
as the most disastrous measure ever
aimed at the wool industry, and suggested
that Australian unwashed WOOL which
was equal to any other washed wool, be
classified as washed wool so as to put it on
the same footing with other woods OF the
world. He would place tariff of IL cents
on all merino WOODS except Australian, on
which rate OF "a cents was desired be-
cause of its ''shrinkage' qualities.
Asked if law of the kind he proposed
would not keep Australian wool out of
the country, he replied that if it should it
would prove beneficial. In case it did We
could take wool from South America and
build up a trade with those countries,
which in return would take our products.
Australia, he said, never took anything
from US. He argued in favor of specific
duties, saying that the ad valorem system
was ''the most damnable system ever pro-
posed by set of rascals."
Continuing, Mr.. Lawrence said Con-
grass should, if possible at the present
session, pass q bill with one section de-
claring that ali articles imported after the
first day of the first session of the Fifty
fifth Congress shall be subject to the rates
of duty prescribed by any tariff bill
which may become law during that
session when such rates are higher than
the existing law, and that no article shall
be withdrawn for consumption except
upon the execution of a bond to the
United States with sureties approved by
the proper Collector of the port of entry
for the payment of such in creased rates of
duty.
A recess was here taken, and on reas-
SER bling Theo. Justice of Philadelphia. ID
dealer in all grades of wool, spoke for the
consume rs, VINO, he said had been injured
by free wool. In one year there was a loss
people of 1926, 100000. The loss to mill
hands and laborers by free wool had been
about $85.000000 during the last year.
The wool-growers of New York, he said,
had lost on an average OF $430 per annum,
while saving on clothing about So.
Speaking of wool as a munition of war,
Mr.. Justice called the attention of the
committee to the condition in which the
country would find itself in case of war
with Great Britain if the American wool
clip decreased as it had been doing, and
he pointed to the condition of the CONT
mem tai troops under General Washington
at Valley Forge and to the condition of
the Confederates during the late war.
In discussing the various tariffs he said
that under the law OF 1868 the WOO indus
try had prospered and increased, and if it
had remained in force until 1895 he as
serted that American sheep, at the rate of
increase while the Law existed, would have
$50 100000 pounds of wool an
nually, or sufficient to supply all our de-
mands The law of 1883 he characterized
as the worst ever enacted. as far as the
wool act was concerned. Under it the
number of sheep had decreased IL per
cent in five years. From 1888 unit Presi-
dent Cleveland's election the industry,
under 10-cent. rate, had prospeled. A
TO- cent rate he considered adequate. The
industry again suffered from 1898 to 1896,
the number of sheep decreasing % per
cent in those four years, while the indus
try abroad had increased.
In his opinion the term carpet woods"
should be abandoned and wool costing 10
cents per pound and under should be
ciassed as third class" Quantities of
UGH woods were now being used in blank
cts and clothing. Whatever duty was
placed on this class OF wool would be
purely for revenue and would not affect
the industry in this country. The wool
section of the Mckinley law was drawn by
a convention of expert representative
and manufacturers.
In replying to o question by Chairman
Dingley he said that the demand for cheap
clothing increased under the Wilson bill.
These clothes could not be made of wool.
so the demand for shoddy had increased.
The demand for cheap material was
on account of the reduction in wages.
Under the Mckinley law good wool snit
sold for about $40. Workmen made suf-
ficent to buy them. Under the Wilson
law wages diminished and the demand
was for suits worth about $5. This ac-
counted for the advent of shoddy.
G.. c. Moses OF Bath. Me-, an importer
and manufacturer, said that ii the course
advocated by Mr.. Lawrence was adopted
it meant death to the manufacturer and
would restrict importations.
Delegate Catron of New Mexico said
that under the Mckinley law his Territory
had produced some 10000 900 pounds of
wool per year. Under the present law the
production had decreased, as had the
price. The decrease in the latter item
was about IL cents per pound.
J. W. Smith of Layton, Utah, president
of the Montgomery Association, stated
that what DELEGATE Catron had said of the
condition in New Mexico applied to his
State. What the wool-growers OF Utah
wanted was fixed tariff, also specific
duty on wool.
w. III. Brown, manufacturer of Phila.
delphia, asked for duty of 10 cents on
oils and waste.
John Ridgeway of Philadelphia smoke
for the wool-sorters. He hoped that
when the question of ''skirting woop'
came up the workmen would be remem.
bered. He wanted an additional dutv on