The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1907-08-22
THURSDAY, AUGTST 80, 1907.

Our wool manufactures, as shown by
the census of 1905, produced product
whorth $3.50, 934 ,OO3. The wages paid
were $40, 797, 524. Material cost S942, 56l,
O9G. A simple calculation will show
that the wages were about 49, per cent
of the value of the product. Now, the
tariff on woolens is said 20 be levied to
equalize the cost of production here and
abroad, that is, the tariff is to cover the
difference between 49, per cent OF the
value of the product and whatever 1t
costs abroad TO producesimilar products.
The tariff is not to pay the whole cost
of the home production, but only the
difference between 1St per cent and the
foreign labor cost.
Now then, what is the tariff on wooden
goods? There are number of classes
and the tariff varies with the classlfica-
ton. For the fiscal year 1902 yarns
made wholly or in part of wool, when
not over 30 cents pound, paid tax Of
1876 per cent; valued at more than 30 cents
a pound, 90 per cent, making for all sorts
of such yarns an average Of 1O5 per cent
The tax on blankets varied according to
classification from 80 to 1877 per cent
showing an average of SO per cent.
Cloths, wooden or worsted, valued at
not more than 40 cents pound, PAID
1870 per cent, valued ut over 40 cents and
not above 70 cents pound, ia per cent.
The average for wooden and worsted
cloths was % per cent. In other words
the importations were valued at Si6ll,'
429 "a and the duties were "a, $50, 72S.9S.
The tariff was nearly equal to the for
eign value of the goods and on part OF
the imports much more.
The average tariff on dress goods in
the same year was 1902 per cent In
other words, the total value OF dress
goods imported, comprised wholly or in
part of wool was SG457, lO5 and the
duties on them were 81, GA, SS5. These
are the duties actually paid on goods
which entered into consumption in the
United States.
The average rate of duty in the same
year on fannels was lO5 per cent; on
pushes, 80 per cent on wearing apparel
SO per cent; on variety OF articles
grouped together, 81 per cent The total
manufactures of wool were taxed at an
average of u per cent
Now these rates have been the same
since the passage Of the Dingley law ten
years ago The rates wore put high 1t
was said, to make up for the difference
of the cost Of labor here and abroad.
What that difference was does not APP
pear. But it does appear that the total
cost of woolens, according to the census
of 1905, was about 1871 per cent OF the
product So the tariff on woolens was
about five times the total labor cost of
wooden production in the United States
Does anybody believe that such tariff
was designed to cover the difference be-
tween the cost Of production in the
United States and in foreign countries?
If that was the design the statistics show
that it is largely above the tariifrequired
for such purpose. II such was the
real purpose why should any advocate
of protection object to reducing the tariff
to figure which would simply cover
the difference in labor cost! The truth
is the tariff was not intended for any
such purpose, but was meant to serve as
means of extortion. 1t has served that
purpose well, and 80 long as it does SO
the men who practice extortion will not
consent to its reduction to IA rational
basis