The Dickinson press. (Dickinson, Stark County, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1883-1927, 1906-10-13

cluSlOn that the Dlngley act was better
for the manufacturer than for the grow
ers of WOOL
Today we find that the American wool
grower produces only As per cent of the
clean wool that is used in manufacturing
woolen clothing. Complaint has there
tore been made by manufacturers
When the Dingley act was passed in
1897 wool duties were then favored by
some manufacturers who do not now
favor them to the same extent, because,
they say, "the Dingley tariff on wool has
not expanded the business of growing
wool so rapidly as it has expanded that
of manufacturing WOOL"
This, however, is not broad view, nor
one which, | am glad to say, is held by
the majority of wooen manufacturers.
They realize that the wool and the
woolen schedule K of the Dingley act is
good one for all the American people
as whole, and, as shown above, even
better for the manufacturer than for the
wool grower, and that we should hold on
to it as a good thing, which is not likely
ever again to be followed by any new
tariff act giving as much protection to all
the people and to the woolen manufac-
turers in particular.
Because American raw wool produc-
ton has not kept pace with American
consumption we find today few short
sighted manufacturers asking tariff re-
vision on articles which they do not
themselves produce, in order that they
may have cheaper raw material. There
is no justice or justification in protection
to few favored American industries.
Unless protection is given to all other
American industries none are entitled to
it. Is it not robbery to ask farmer to
pay as per cent duty on the harness he
buys unless he can retain the Is per cent
duty on hides which he sells? If the
manufacturer of harness or shoes has a
| right to free hides the farmer has an
equal right to free harness or free shoes
made from those free hides.
WOOL MEN AND wooLEN MEN.
The woolen manufacturers of the
| United States are only represented in
Congress by a handful of representatives
from the eastern fringe or border of our
country, while the wool growers are rep.
resented by a multitude from almos,
every section and have voting power
there that, ben it comes to altering the
tariff, will place the manufacturing in.
dustry completely at the mercy Of the
representatives in Congress of the WOO
lgrowing industry. In the event of a con.
fict or a tariff war between these two
branches of an American industry the
result should be obvious to any one with
average common sense.
Four years experience of the free
wool Wilson act showed that the Amer.
ican wool grower can never proftably
export his wool to foreign markets, and
that he is therefore entirely dependen,
upon the home market. 1t is obvious
then, that if the wool growing industry
in the United States is ever to be de
stroyed through the removal of tariff
protection, the grower of wool-then
having no longer any interest in pro-
tecting the American manufacturer, his
former customer-will Immediately de-
mand, and should have, the benefits Of
buying cheap free clothing, which he car
get by the removal of duty on manufac
lures of wool.
Now, where would the American man
ufacturer be with no duty at all? If he
could not exist under the Wilson act
with duty of 50 per cent ad valorem
how could he exist with none? How i:
he to get any protection if the represen
tatives in Congress of wool growers have
no interest in protecting the market fol
these wool growers when and because
they have nothing to sell?
MUST STAND OR FALL TOGETHER.
So the future of wool in the United
States depends upon absolute harmon,
between the grower and the manufac
turer on the question of tariff protection
tor both industries. They must stand o.
fall together Neither can thrive no.
even live without the other. The polio,
of both must be joint offensive and de
tenslve alliance, each protecting the
other, with enough duties upon tha
which each produces to enable him tc
thrive in competition with foreign com
peting rivals.
The American manufacturer mus
have protection because wages paid te
labor in Europe are from one-half t.
one-third less than wages paid for tn.
same efficiency of service in the Unitec
States.
The American grower, for the sam,
reason, must have protection, and be
cause of the advantages of the foreign
wool growers, especially those located il
semi-tropical climates, which afford tn,
ocncHtS VI perennial pasture. lneSe aQ
vantages to the foreign wool grower ar,
so great that, without duties at least a
high as they are at present, as experience
has amply proved, the wool growing in
dustry of the United States must perish
WOULD DIsAPPo1NT THOSE WHO WANT IT
No tariff revision downward on woo
can occur without injury to the manu-
featuring industry, because decrease il
wool production means increase in WOO
prices. Free wool in time, therefore
would result in positive disappointment
to the American manufacturer, who onl,
wants free wool in order to get cheape
wool.
4: The question of the future of wool
therefore, is wholly involved in the con
tinuation of tariff protection to the indus
try that produces WOOL
\ Important consideration must be givel
to the question of tariff revision, as tina
question is now urged upon the com
munity, and we cannot properly estimat
] its effect upon home industries unless W