Cañon City record., 1908-10-29
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND
MEANS,
House of Representatives,
Washington. ID. c.. Feb. 9. 1S0:

House of Representatives,
Washington, ID. c.. Feb. Q. 1894.
Nj. v. Neunihn, Oakland, Neb.:
Dear Sir-Your favor at hand. I
think you are right in saying that if
we prohibited the use of shoddy, either
directly or indirectly, 1t would Increase
the price OF wool to some extent by In
crelsing the demand for 1t, but 1t is
not eXpedient always to do everything
which it is possible to do. do not
think that the taxing power ought to
be used for any such purpose. am
not so much interested in raising the
price OF wool which will only benefit
those who raise sheep. as I am in low
ering the price Of WOODEN goods, which
will benefit all those who wear them.
Yours truly.
(signedj W. j. BRYAN.
Bryan's sophistry shown.
The American Sheep Breeder in a
recent issue exposes the fallacy Of the
Bryap contention as follows:
Bryan's free wool sophistry is knock
ed ir n cooked hat by facts and figures
rs far as the dear public" is con-
cernrd. Mr.. Bryan doesn't believe In
building up n great national industry
like the wool industry, at the expense
OF the general public. Really, how
much does the dear public have to pay
to maintain the wool industry Of the
United States? Let US get down to
facts and figures. There are something
like one million men engnged In grow
ing wool, with about five hundred mill
ion dollars of capital invested, with an
annual wool production Of say from
fifty to sixty million dollars. This fig
ure is based on an average of 1S cents
per pound for the wool grown. In nd
ditlon to that, say fifteen million NUT
tons are produced Mt n selling price Of
around sixty-five to seventy-fve million
dollars. A fair valuation Of the annual
production Of wool and mutton would
be one hundred and twenty-five mill
ions. What the annual loss to this In
dustry would be under free wool reg
ime is well known. Instead OF the
average of say IS cents per pound
(Which is an extremely low figure for
wool under ordinary times) and the av-
erage Of about half that price for wool
(on free trade basis) would mean
loss to the wool grower Of at least
twenty-five million dollars per year.
Wool growing in the West, under Cleve-
lands administrator. ruined thousands
u
low as seven and eight cent per pound
under Cleveland. Two years ago these
wools brought anywhere from eighteen
to twenty five cents per pound. and
even higher figures for exceptional
clips.
Free Trade No BeneAt to ConsamsS.
Now let US 6nd out the cost Of cloth
ing, and the so-called saving to the con-
sumer. For a spring suit Of all.wool
clothes, three and one-ha1f yards OF
cloth are required. One yard Of cloth
weighs ten ounces. This would require
tribe over two pounds Of wool. A
fall suit requires three and 0ne-half
yards at fourteen ounces to tho yard,
or forty-nine ounces. The cost Of cloth
ing represents So per cent in labor and
10 per cent in material. The ordinary
suit Of clothing has 90 per cent of wool
and the balance 10 shoddy and eoeton.
Suppose the tariR on wool were re.
moved, that wool that had been aver
aging IS cents per pound fell 30 per
cent; the saving on spring Dalt Of
clothing would be tribe under twenty
cent?, providing the manufactutsg and
the refaiiaf cut down the prizes - tn
enrmont 70 the sxtsnt Of the E11ucod
value - ~ wesl eause1 ~ rsnotsal