The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-11-24
NO TARIFF ON
JUTE BAGG|NG
New Orleans Cotton Elk
change is Striving to
Have It Removed.
Special to The Journal.

Special to The Journal.
New Orleans, Nov. 21.-As part of
his comprehensive plan to improve
the conditions under which the South
markets its annual cotton crop and to
reduce the cost of handling, storage,
etc, President w. B. Thompson, of
the New Orleans Cotton Exchange, re-
Gently took up the matter of removing
the import duty on jute bagging and
steel ties with the Southern members
Of congress, and has received many
favorable responses. Yesterday Mi.
Thompson, in an interview gave his
reasons why he advocated no tariff
on these commodities, as follows:
Il feel much encouraged by the
promptness and unanimity with which
Southern members of congress have
responded to the active movement of
the Cotton Exchange started a few
days ago for the removal of the duty
on jUte bagging and steel ties. Al
though only a short time has elapsed
since we addressed the congressman
the replies received in number and
kind give US the assurance that a de-
termined effort will be made TO Sc
cure the relief and advantage asked
for the cotton farmer
Il have heard that there is some op-
position TO the removal of the duty in
question on the part of some cotton
planters themselves. l cannot think
that this opposition comes from ma
ture reflection. As 1 understand il,
the contention is made that the duty
on jue should be increased instead of
being removed, to the end that jute
could not be used at all for .bagging,
and that manufacturers would be
forced to use cotton in the manufac-
ture of baling stuff.
''In the first place it iOy no means
follows that cotton would have TO be
used If jute was kept out by pro-
hibitive tariff. Some other product
cheaper than cotton would probably
be found. But in the second place,
even if it was possible by legislation
to force manufacturers to use cotton
and cotton only in the manufacture of
bagging, l do not see how the farmer
would be benefited thereby, and | do
see how he would surely be hurt. If
bagging could be made from the re-
fuse product of the crop and il mar
ket would thereby be made for stuff
that was not before marketable. l
could see some force in this argument.
But such is not the case. The cotton
that would be used for cotton baling
Is already marketable for other pur
poses and is made into goods of a
much greater value than cotton bag
ging. Or if there were any other
users of cotton bagging than the
farmer himself, there might be some
reason for compelling the use of cot
ton for this purpose. But the farmer
Is the only user of bagging and any
increase in the cost thereof would be
a direct burden upon him and him
alone. In other words, if the use OF
cheap baling stuff was prevented by
legislation and a more expensive ar
ticle substituted, the farmer and
everyone else would have to pay
more for that class of cotton goods
out of the grades re-
1uired for bagging, and the farmer
and the farmer alone would have to
paw Just that much more for his bag
ging The farmer would get more for
4 very restricted part of his crop, but
he would pay more for the goods now !
nanufa ctured from this restricted por- |
ton and more for the baling of his |
entire crop. He would thus levy a |
heavy tax upon himself.
THE sound and proper course is to |
Use the cheapest stuff available for |
oaling purposes and to make this still |
cheaper by removing artificial restric- !
ions. An artifcis. demand for a !
is productive of no perma- |
rent good, and especially not, when |
he burden of sustaining such demand |
alls entirely upon the consumer of |
he commodity projected"