The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-10-10
NOT CHEAPER CLOTHING.

Ono OF the great claims made by
| tho Democrats as justification for
their tariff revision, was that it was
going TO reduce the price of tho com
mon necessities Of life. Among these
was the cost Of clothing. AS TO this,
| however, we have shown heretofore
! that the President of the American
Tailors' Association has assured the
public that no reduction in tho price Of
clothing was to be expected from the
removal of duty upon wool.
| We find this corroborated in an in
tervicw with William Goldman, prcsi-
dent OF the National Association Of
| Clothiers. IN the New York Journal of
Commerce and Commercial Bulletin.
Mr.. Goldman explains that while the
reductions in Schedule {" arc reyoIu-
| tionary, ''the new tariff will not cause
any serious disturbance to the clothing
| trade. - He states that domestic COM
petition has effectually kept down the
low the tariff wall, and the present
changes in rates will not pcrceptibly
change any prices of woolcns except in
the finest grades. The great bulk Of
wooden manufactures will he supplied
by the home mills; therefore, the "im-
portant change created by this new in
fluence is the response of our wool mar
ket on the removal Of duty on wool -
The meaning Of this being that the
price of wool will be reduced, but that
the price of wooden goods and cloth
ing will be kept UP at the old price. He
states that 'tour clothing manufacture
ers making medium and good clothes
are able TO show reductions that range
only from 5 cents to 171h cents in Gus
tom goods, and there is practically no
change in the cheaper grades His
conclusion. therefore, is that "Whilc
this will mean saving of anywhere
from 90 cents to 60 cents on suit of
clothes, the saving will very generally
be consumed in the additional cost of
labor for making the clothes
That is n plain, straightforward
statement that what has been promised
with regard to cheapening the cost Of
clothing is not to be had. That is, a
suit Of clothes will not be cbeapened
at all to the buyer,
But TO offset this, Mr.. Goldman
urges that "while the saving in cost
to the consumer will, therefore, be lit
tie, if any, if the new tariff had not
been enacted his clothes would have
cost him more.' That is, if it had
not been for the passage Of this bill
taking the tariff off from wool, the
cost of clothing would have been
raised. This is quite possible, to be
sure, since the Clothiers' Association
probably have control Of the market
and could have raised the price at will
But as a bracer to the argument that
the tariff bill will reduce the cost of
clothing, it is far from satisfactory.
Since it is a clear case that in the
opinion of Mr.. Goldman there is to be
no reduction in the price of clothing,
his association will undoubtedly be able
to hold the prices up to the present
figure. No relief, therefore, is to be ex-
pected on this account by reason Of
the passage Of this bill. But when Mr.,
Goldman departs from facts and sets
forth as benefit Of this bill that it
will stop the increase in the price of
clothing that otherwise might have
been ordered, he departs from the
realm Of actuality and enters the realm
of speculation. In the meantime, moth
ing is gained, and the treasury loses
on the whole account anywhere from
$6O,O0O,oOo to S7o,ooo,ooO q year by
reason of the passage Of this partisan
tariff law.