The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-04-24

We have already seen that Mr. Lawrence
makes the present product equivalent to
1l5 2S4,579 pounds of secured wool, or not
two million and a half pounds less than
the product of 1892, as reduced to secured
wool.
After condoling with the farmer over
his loss of millions on the $4,000 900 pounds
of hypothetical wool, it was to be expect
ed that Mr.. Dingley would, in like terms,
beWail the sad fate of the manufacturers
of wooden goods, the secretary of whose
national association, Mr.. North is now
understood TO be acting as confidential adj
wiser of members of the Senate finance
committee in reviewing the Dingley sched-
ule for the purpose, doubtless, of making
sure that such duties shall be laid on for
eign wooden goods as will also guarantee
to his employers at all times the most
ample prices to reward capital invested
and the services rendered in producing
wooden fabrics.
MIR. Dingley reports that "our manu-
facturers and their workingmen lost
market not only for the goods which in
creased foreign imports had supplanted,'
but also market for goods which farm
ers and other masses of the people would
have bought If their condition had been
as prosperous in 1896 as in 1898. This IL
very handsomely said, and is calculated
to convince Mr.. North and those whose
turers ought to join Mr.. Lawrence and
wool-growers in demanding of congress,
in large capitals, Indemnity for the Past
and Security for the Future"
Perhaps he might find a precedent for
congress to vote such indemnity. 1t paid
back to the states certain taxes collected
from them in 1861 Why should 1t not
pay back to the constituents of Mr.. Law
renee and Mr.. North the taxes it ought 10
have taken, for their benefit, from the
people since 1891? This is a retroactive
tariff How can Mr. Dingley excuse him.
ser to the farmer and manufacturer
for not making 1t ''retroact" so as to in
demnify them for losses which, he de-
clares, were inflicted upon them by law
of congress?
But let us sift Mr. Dingley's own fig
ures and see what they actually do show.
He tells us that we imported three times
as much clothing wool in 1896 as in 1898,
and more than twice as many pounds OF
manufacturers of wool. Our total pro-
duct of wool in 1893 was, according to the
department of agriculture, 30S,0O0000
pounds. Counting combng and clothing,
wool our importation and 5O,OO0C9O
pounds making for the entire consumr-
ton of our factories, excluding carpet
wool. $4,000 600 pounds of wool In 1896
we produced, by Mr. Dingley's estimate,
275 600. 900 pounds, and imported of cloth
ing and combing woods 133,OO0,OOO pounds,
showing an entire consumption by our
factories of 40s.O0O0OO pounds of wool, ex-
Guiding carpet wool.
Thus, it appears that, although we did
import more than twice as many pounds
of manufactures of wool in 1896 as in 1893,
they did not supplant, as Mr.. Dingley
claims, our own manufactures, for we
consumed in them 55,00O,O00 pounds more
than in 1893 Thus, the enlarged consump-
ton of wooden goods made possible for
the American people by the removal of
the duty on wool, and the reduction Of the
duty on wooden goods, has, notwithstand-
ing a great temporary increase of i'm
ports of manufactures, resulted in the con-
sumption of one-seventh more wool in our
own factories than was called for in 1898.
This has meant increased production for
the manufacturer, increased employment
for the workingman, cheaper and more and
better clothes for the people at large.
one may we'll ask Of what crime the
wearers of wooden goods in this country
have been guilty that Mr.. Dingley and his
associates should infllct on them fines
which many cannot pay, and in default of
payment must incur peril of disease and
death