The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-01-04

Those low tariff advocates Who have
been assailing the tariff on wool as
the reason for the increased cost of
clothing during the last few years
!, will find much to confuse II con-
found ,hcm in the report of the tar
if board on wool recently made to
the president and by him transmitted
tn the congress. There are many
| points in tho wool tariff that the
board has simpliticd by tho use of
facts gathered at primary sources.
even though the conclusions and de-
luctions from those facts arc not all
| agreed.
In determining n basis for asccr-
tanning tho cost of wool production,
the hoard followed the plan that has
been used by tariff investigators in
the past. AS is we'll known, both
wool and mutton are produced by the
same operation. That is tho same
feeding. care and original investment
, produce both fleece and carcass. The
method used hy the board Was to
treat tho fleece as the sole product
and to charge against it the entire
receipts from mutton. This basis is
correct except that IL does not pro-
vide for Il profit on the carcass and
thus makes all the profit on the two
productions appear rs profit on wool
alone.
Using the basis and following tho
method outlined above the board
found. by tracing the wool 4" the con-
sumner. that the amount of wool ro-
quired for each yard "f cloth trim
mings cXrcptrd-thnt enters into the
manufacture of II ready made suit
of clothes which rotails at $23 or
moro. was 81 pounds, and that the
number of yards of cloth required
for such suit was SO, Sc that the to-
tai weight of raw wool would he 90
pounds. The board found that the
actual cost of raising wool. based on
Ohio focks. was sixteen cents per
pound. The total cost of raising the
wool for tho suit of clothes used ;s
an illustration would hc s1.55. The
manufacturer. the board found. paid
for the raw product Twenty-Five cents
per pound or s2.23. and the sheep
raiser made n profit of sixty-cight
cents. But. AS indicated before, out
of this must he deducted a profit on
the carcass If sold for mutton.
~! average tlet't ". weight III
ohio Was Ca pounds per head, which
if sold at twcnty-three cents per
| pound-a fair average for the state
| elliptic yield per sheep would be.
in round numbers. s1.50. and the cost
"f production to tho farmer would
be s1.oi, leaving him Il profit Of for
1y-siX cents. This is not AN unfair
business profit when all the risks of
the f~lockmastcr are reckoned, and
which are not included in the tariff
boards estimate.
Ten years ago Il fair business suit
ready made could be bought for SO
or sl1. Now this suit will cost two
ar two and q half times that amount.
II is urged by the advocates Of n low
or tariff that The tariff on wool has
caused this increase. But the tariff
board finds that the whole cost Of
the n in suit is purchased from
the producer for less thar secs,
which amount includes the tariff, IL
it increases the price of the home,
product by it's annount over tho for
cign product. If the duty on the 81
pounds of wool in the suit at eleven
cents per pound. which would make
s1.O1. is deducted ron the price of
the suit it would como several times
short of getting the cost back to
where it was ten years ago.
These figures and deductions prove
concllsivc!y that the enhanced price
of clothes is not due to the tariff on
wool and that those who desire to
find the must search elsewhere.
The Times has always stood for pro-
lection of the farm produced article
because tho tariff laws in tho past
have not been such as I" give the
farmer more than fair protection on
his product n does o permit any
cxOrbitant enhancement of the cost
to the We have always
advocated n tariff on raw wool and
the figures gathered by the tariff
board corroborates our contention in
every particular.