River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1908-10-29
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND
MEANS
House of Representatives.,


MEANS,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D. c.. Feb. 6, 1894.
Mr.. V. Neuman, Oakland, Ncb.:
Dear Sir-Your favor at hand. l
think you are right in saying that if
we prohibited the use of shoddy, either
directly or Indirectly, it would increase
the price of wool to some extent by in
creasing the demand for it, but it is
not eXpedient always to do everything
which it is possible to do. 1 do not
think that the taxing power ought to
be used for any such purpose. | am
not 50 much interested in raising the
price of wool which will only benefit
those who raise sheep, as | am in low
ering the price of wooden goods, which
will benefit all those who wear them.
Yours truly,
(Signed) w. j. BRYAN.
Dryan's SOphistry Shown.
The American Sheep Breeder in a
recent issue exposes the fallacy of the
Bryan contention as follows:
Bryan's free wool sophistry is knock
ed il a cooked hat by facts and figures
as far as the dear public" is con-
cernpd. Mr.. Bryan doesn't believe in
building up a 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 engaged 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 Is cents
per pound for the wool grown. In adj
dition to that, say fifteen million NUT
tons are produced at a selling price of
around siXty-five to seventy-tive 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 we'll 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
Con a 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
of fiockmasters. Montana woods sold as
low as seven and eight cent per pound
under Cleveland. Two years ago these
woods brought anywhere from eighteen
to twenty-five cents per pound, and
even higher figures for exceptional
clips.
Free Trade No Benefit to Consumes.
Now let US find out the cost of cloth
ing, and the so-called saving to the con-
sumner. For a spring suit of all-wool
clothes, three and one-half 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 one-half
yards at fourteen ounces to the yard,
or forty-nine ounces. The cost of cloth
ing represents So per cent in labor and
Is per cent in material. The ordinary
suit of clothing has 60 per cent OF WOOL
and the balance is shoddy and cotton.
Suppose the tariff on wool were re-
moved that wool that had been aver
aging IS cents per pound fell % per
cent; the saving on a spring suit Of
clothing would be a tri1e under twenty
cents, providing the manufacturer and
the retailer cut down the price OF the
garment TO the extent Of the reduced
value Of the wool caused by removal