Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-01-07

law. Eight or ten millions during the four
years" he replied.
And finally get none" interposed Mr..
Wheeler.
why should we want any?' retorted
Mr.. Lawrence. amid laughter.
Il mean from wool he amended. THE
country will be prosperous and we can
get revenues from other sources.
Mir. Turner. of Georgia. inquired if the
schedule had not really been drawn TO
shut out the higher grades of WOOL which
Mr.. Lawrence denied.
In reply to questions from Mr.. Tur-
ner. Mr.. Lawrence said the average cit
izen would receive $25 worth of ben
efits for every So advance in the prices
of woolens. The point was then elic-
tied that the wool growers plan pro-
posed an annual increase OF one-haI
a cent a pound.
And where would we finally land?'
inquired Mr.. Dingley
THE increase would end at 10 cents
a pound" was the explanation.
The consumer was represented at the
afternoon session by Theodore Justice,
a wool dealer of Philadelphia. He
stated that while the trial of free wool
under the Wilson law had slightly ben
efitted the consumer by reduction in
prices. the saving had been greatly out
weighed by the loss in purchasing pow
er. The gain by lower prices had aver
aged 90 cents per capita, while the loss
amounted to more than 81. The aver
age loss TO wool growers had been
S422. SO, while the mill hands and labor
ers Of the United States had lost SS0,-
0O0.000 during the past year. The Nc
Kinley law had given the cheapest
priced clothing ever known up 10 its
time. He gave figures showing the ei-
fects of that tariff of 1867 under which
focks had increased % per cent in four
years: that of 1883, the worst ever
known: the Mckinley law under
which flocks increased 13 per cent. and
the last period. under the Wilson law.
He said: when it was known that
Grover Cleveland meant to continue
his assaults on this industry with the
ass stance of both branches Of Congress
farmers began TO dispose OF their
1ocks."
From 1893 to 1896 the number Of sheep
had decreased 2S per cent, and there are
now fewer in the United States than in
1865. Had the Mckinley law been con-
tinued. the United States would be
able to produce its full consumption OF
$50 OO0. 600 pounds of wool.
Mr.. Justice presented elaborate tables
showing variations in the production
and prices of wool in different coun-
tries, illustrating among other points
that American woods had fallen IN
prices under free trade and Australian
wools had risen. The per cent OF
sheen east of the Mississippi in 1870
was II. and to-day SO per cent NO
harm would be done the American bus
mess If woOls costing under 10 cents
were admitted free. for these never
would be raised profitably in the United
States.
In the course of his statement, Mr..
Justice said that Mr.. Mckinley had told
the wool growers and manufacturers
that if they would agree unanimously
upon a schedule he would accept 1t.
Accordingly the schedule had been
framed by q convention of representa-
tive manufacturers and growers and
both had prOspered under 1t.
1T would be strange if they did not
prosper when they made their own
schedule" commented Mr.. Mcmillan,
and he asked, was it not a fact that
the manufacturers got the benefit OF
part of the specific rate imposed for the
benefit Of farmers?
Mr.. Justice assented and continued that
the farmers had disposed of all their clip
under the Mckinley law to the American
manufacturers, who in turn, had increased
their exports.
Referring TO shoddy. he said that while
the annual importations Of it under the
Mckinley law had been 25OCOO pounds,
between August and December Of the
wear the Wilson law was enacted. there
had been 100000 pounds imported and in
the first fun calendar year under that
law. 20.TSO0O pounds. The theory of the
farmers of the Wilson law had been that
free wool would stop importations of
sboddv. No nation had ever used as little
shoddy as the United States under the
Mckinley law. The explanation Of the
increased use of shoddy was that the in
creased importations of cheap clothes un-
der the Wilson law compelled the Amer
lean manufacturers to make such cheap
clothes to compete. that he was obliged
to use shoddy Moreover. there had been
less money earned by all classes under the
Wilson law to spend for clothes
The next peaker. 3. c. Moses. an i'm
porter of Australian and South American
woods. contended that the duties asked
by the wool growers association We're Nro-
hibitive and would mean death to the man
ufacturer He did not believe public opi1-
ion nor the good sense of the committee
sustains such a duty. but he did believe
that a good tariff was demanded on wool
DELEGATE Catron of New Mexico. stated
that the value of the wool produced hy
rbe three million sheep in that territory
had decreased on an average of II cents
round since the enactment Of the Wilson
law.
senator Carter and " C. Conrad. of
Montana. appeared in behalf of the wool
growers of their State and filed state
ments with the committee.
Jssse N. Smith. OF Utah. president Of
rho Srate wool growers association. assert
"a thar as sheep rising east of the Miss
issinni river was greater than west the
western men would be satisfied with any
tariff which the fasteners would accept
wilson II. Brown. Of Philadelphia. pro-
tested against discrimination against the
manufacture by any scheme involving
duties on noils and waste
John Ridgeway. Of Philadelphia. spoke
for protection to the workingmen by a
schedule which would exclude skirted
v-oo5sfror Australia and give employment
IN the wool sorters who were now walking
the streets.