The Republican journal., 1912-01-25
Report of the Tariff Board.

To THE EDITOR OF The JOURNAL: The
ling looked-for report of the Tariff
BOARD on the wool and wooden Industries
has been transmitted to Congress and l
have been looking at it, and it is very
mich what was expected. The vol
nmes of the report are very comprehen-
s;ye, and covers every phase of the in
dlstry from the raising of the wool to
the finished garments.
The Board made an exhaustive survey
and study of the cost of producing wool
IN all of the principal WOOL producing ma
lions. In arriving at the cost Of produ-
cing pound of wool they did not reckon
the market price of the food that the
sheep consumed, but allowed what it &C
tually cost the farmer to produce the
food, and did not allow interest on the
value of the sheep. If this item of cost
had been allowed it would probably have
made an addition of three cents to the
eosr of each pound of wool.
The Investigations included nearly
l.2UO wool growers in 173 counties in 10
Of the principal wool-growing States.
As was expected they found that it costs
more to produce pound of wool in this
country than any where else in the
world. and that the merino wool, of
wach our mills are such heavy consul
r.ers, is the most expensive to raise.
TIE most expensive place to raise wool
IS If the State of Ohio and adjacent ter
r,ory, and the cheapest is in Australia.
OF course it is difficult to arrive at the
actual cost of pound of wool and sepa-
rate 1t from the cost of the lambs and
mutton, etc. produced, but the same sys-
ZEN was taken in all cases and it will
work out in one as we'll as in another.
This was to charge all expenses to the
wool and credit the wool with the entire
income of the flock, and this will give the
net cost of the wool.
/; was found after the most careful in
designations that a pound of merino wool
averaged to cost in the United States, IL
cents per pound; while in Ohio and
nearby it costs 10 cents per pound. That
the average cost of all classes of wool
costs the American farmer 9 1-2 cents
pound to produce. That the cost in
South America of the same grades costs
between 4 and 5 cents pound. In New
Zealand, and in the most favorably stu
ated portions of Australia. where inn
nense clips of wool are produced, it ap-
pears that the sales of other products of
the flock cover the entire expense, leav-
lug the wool net product, and there
fore a net profit.
The average number of sheep kept on
the LOGO farms in this State that re-
ported sheep thereon at the last census,
vas about 20 per farm. This means
some l2O pounds of wool raised per flock.
Ills will mean profit of about SIS per
lock, OF about rs cents per head. This
rs surely not very large profit, and if
-eNen out it would reduce this profit at
east 80 per cent While the labor, for
age and other expenses exceed 50 per
head III the western sheep raising
safes, these same expenses in Australia
3e.-l less than 81 and in South America
about 81. Is per head. So while it costs
joe per cent more to raise wool here
tran it does in the other principal wool
reducing countries the duty on the wool
Is only 40 per cent. But in the secured
wool class some of the rates are too high
aud should be lessened
Iae duties on rags ard shoddy is so
Ugh that very little is imported. But
his is all right. Any one who has been
into shoddy mill will say that we do
not want any more shoddy in our cloth
ing than we can help. An investigation
under the Cleveland administration
showed the fact that more shoddy was
used in the manufacture of cloth in Eng
and than in this country. In fact, we
Export large quantities of shoddy and
rags to go to England to work into
WOODEN cloth. 1t was found that the oft
repeated assertion that the duty was
added to the price of the articles, even
when made in this country, was not true.
The Board purchased 16 samples of
cloths upon which the duties ranged
from 15c to zoe per cwt; so high, in
fact, they could not be brought in here
and sold in competition with domestic
goods. These 16 pieces of goods cost
Al.S4 abroad. If one brought them
INTO this country he would have to pay
$3.50 duty on them, making them cost,
bought here, S118.80, or about $120 with
the freight added. Now the domestic
price of absolutely similar goods made
here was found to be S69. rs, which is
less than the duty, to say nothing of the
foreign cost. And Notwithstanding the
hlgh rates of duty on manufactured
WOODEN goods we do not produce enough
for our own use, but we imported from
foreign countries seven times as much in
value in 1910 as we sold them. 1t was
found that in the erection and equipment
Of two identical wooden mills, one here