The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1910-11-28
THE WOOL SCHEDULE.

lack oflcial confirmation. Washington rl-
mors declare that 10 IL the Prssident' 4
purpose 10 urge. either In his regular
message or In q special communication
to Congress. q downward revision OF q
few selected items on the tarf sched-
ules. The rates on wool and woollens
appearing in thu Law a. Schedule \,
are said to excite his particular sollci
tud,. The President IL among the
many who believe or who arc inclined
10 believe that the tariff on those COM
modiiies imposes an unnecessary and
unreasonable burden upon tho buyers Of
clot hing and blankets and carpets. A
defence OF the present rate Ia not In any
way involved in assertion that In tho
matter Of tariff influence ON COMMODITY
prices there are probably no other articles
on the entire list with regard to which
he public Ia so easily led or so likely to
be led into misconceptiou. The assertion
u robbery under Schedule X has been
80 emphaticslly and so persistently made
thar belief in tho truth Of the asser-
ton is now widespread. With that belief
comes its necessary companion. namely,
belief tina, free wool and lower rates on
woolien goods would AFFORD IN at erial relief
from present burdens
This argument ignores certain factors
OF Importance. and the mistake may easily
be made OF exciting hopes that cannot
be realized The duties on wool and on
woollen goods have been a political bone
Of contention for nearly hundred years
The production OF woollen cloth In this
country was entirely a household indus
try until the early part OF the nineteenth
century. There /. record Of fulling mills
and cardins mills In operation at an earlier
time, but mill spinning and weaving ap-
pear to have had their beginning about
1910. The war Of 1872 greatly stimulated
the industry and the value Of mill products
in 1916 has been estimated or guessed a.
$4,000 600. The restoration OF trade rela-
tons with England brought the Amer
lean mill product into sharp com petition
with British woollens. The tariff Of 1919
i'm osed a duty Of rs per cent. for three
years and 20 per cent. thereafter Under
that tariff raw wool was subject TO . duty
OF Is per cent. rs an -unenumerated"
article. For the greater part OF the time
since that year both wool and woollens
have been dutiable.
The theory that protection stimulates
domestic industry does not seem to be
well supported by the recent history Of
raw wool production. Tho decade 1890
to 1900 must be disregarisd because OF
the changes made by the Mckinley bill
OF 1890. the Wilson German bill Of 1894
and the Dinglsy bill OF 1897. The esti-
mates OF the Department OF Agriculture
for tho years 1880 to 1850. inclusive. show
an average yearly wool clip OF 270 600. 900
pounds. The estimates OF the National
Association Of Wool Manufacturers show
the clip for the years 1900 to 1910 inclusive
as averaging 3Oe 900. 900 pounds. That is.
under protection regarded by many as
unreasonable and exorbitant there has
been only u 10 per cent. increase IN pro-
duct ion in twenty years. In the same
time the American requirement has in
creased from an average OF 3ss. 600 900
20 an average OF $50. CO... 600 pounds The
present requirement ~ about COO. ono. 600
pounds and present supply about s25. O0o.
100 pounds From SO To 1889 the focks
81 This country supplied about three
quarters Of the wool needed. whereas they
now furnish only a little more than one
half Domese 10 consump, ion ha ving in
creased o. per cent in ten years. dome-t 10
supply has increased only about 10 per
cent and imports have increased % per
cent The al valorem rate on the total
raw wool importation Is about ~ per
cent Even with that liberal prot ect ion
the premium on production has been in
sufficient 20 act AS y o. Imulrls to sheep
raising.