Evening journal., 1922-09-28
Lower COST
ON CLOTHING
Smoot, Defending Tariff on
Wool, Predicts Price Drop
on Spring Suits
DENIES ALLEGED
INCREASE IN PRICE

WASHINGTON, Sept. Estate.
ments that the tariff on wool under
the Fordney- McCumber act will cost
the consumer 81 more on every suit
and on every heavy winter overcoat
were challenged by Senator Smoot,
OF Utah. ranking Republican OF the
Finance Committee. Mr.. Smoot
said the duty OF 81 cents pound
on clean wool was so per cent. lower
than the rates carried IN the Emer-
gsncy Tariff Act. He predicted the
tn. prices of clothes would drop
next spring.
ut is the merest rot TO claim
that the new tariff will raise cloth
ing prices to the consumer" Mr..
Smoot said.
In analysis OF the difference be-
tween rates in the Fordney-Mc-
Cumber act and the Emergency
Tariff Act, in which the basis rate
was Is cents per pound on wool re-
ported in the grease, Mr.. Smoot
pointed out that woods Imported
after May Z, 1921. when the emer-
yency tariff became effective, were
placed in bond and held there until
the present tariff with its greatly
lowered effective rates, went into
effect"
These woods are now being with
drawn for use by the mills. ne
said. land are paying a duty OF 81
cents per pound on clean contents
instead OF IS cents"
On clothes for the spring OF 1928
the American Wooden Company, ac-
cording to Mr.. Smoot, was ablo to
quote prices which averaged sub
stantially lower on some lines than
at its opening for the spring season
of 1922 because the rate on raw
wool is lower in the present law.
In thus explaining the trend OF
prices. he said:
f, 'sThe foregoing simply means /
that, in the Judgment OF those best I
qualified TO speak. the price OF wool I
en- clothing should be cheaper in 1
the spring Of 1928 and thereafter
than previously. Statements to the
contrary appear TO be camouhage
put on to hide an intention to prof.
teer at the expense OF the consumer,
or for political purposes or both.
There is no reason whatever for any
honest, sane person TO claim that
the price OF wool clothing will be
higher because of the Fordney-Mc-
Cumber act.
THE esteemed but voiuble critic
of the duty apparently believed in
accounting, and also
uses profteering pyramiding in or
der to errive at his increased cost
over free wool OF 81 on a summer
suit to $3.50 on an ulster overcoat,
This individual gophers around like
basque shepherd IN n bone-dry
desert in his effort to fortify the
Ridiculous estimate which he gives
The trade. There is no doubt what
ever that some manufacturers OF
would like to increase their
profits as he outlined. but competi-
hon for business will prevent any
luch reprehensible greed going on
!, rampage"
In substantiation of his statement
hat ''the alleged prospective pyra-
hiding OF the duty on raw wool ia
! 1sment OF the Imagination" Mr..
Bmoot quoted from the Manufao-
turer. the publication OF the Manu-
lecturers Club of Philadelphia, to
show that the increased cost OF
,lothing attributable to the Fordney-
MoCumber duty on raw wool should
Ar41x IN or ]
mutt. only $1.62 on a heavy winter
suit and only s2.7s on heavy win
.er evercoat. as compared with the
prices which would have been paid
Z there were no duty on wool.