The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1922-04-04

that the forty-ffve cent rate would do until after this Springs ''shearing'' season was over. Shoot still held out, and a thirty-three cent duty was f. nally agreed upon.
 Acts as Embargo.
 But members of the Tariff Bloc" do not deny that that thirty three l cent rate will act as an embargo against the wool of Australia, New Zealand, the Argentine and South Africa.
 But from their viewpoint such an embargo is all right, no matter how much it may boost the living costs of the Eastern consumer and toiIer After all, the Agricultural Bloc was intended to benefit, primarily, the farmer first and the consumer second Iy. But the Tariff Bloc arales, as did the Agricultural Bloc," that the consumer Is bound to suffer when the producer suffers. and the consumer cannot benefit unless the producer does. That is the keynote of the con- tention that the Tariff Bloc is necessary, even more so, than the Agricultural ~B1oc.' The members of both deny indignantly that theirs is class legislation; that, while admit tedly sectional, 1t will not help the whole country.
 Wool is, perhaps, the best example of what the Tariff Bloc is up to. Under the old Payne-A1drich bill which the late Senator Penrose used to swear by-there was under the fa- nous 'Schedu1e K a duty of eleven cents per pound on 'unwashed wool. The present proposed duty of thirty three cents per pound on washed" wool is represented as the equivalent of the Payne-Aldrich schedule, but, as a matter of fact, it materially increase the old tariff on wool by the simple process of assessing the duty on the "scoured basis
 Claim Duty Is Fair.
 The wool growers of the West claim that such a duty is "'reasonable and fair' because of the advantage, they claim their Australian and other TOT eign competitors have in being able to produce wool that possesses high average of natural "clean content due to the favorable climatic cond1- tions under which it is grown.
 In the West wind and sandstorms are among the obstacles nature places in the way of growing 'clean wool The large percentage of forelgn SUD. stances accumulated by millions of sheep is an important factor of the situation. Dust and burrs and grease are hopelessly mixed in their wool at shearing time
 Because of different climatic and geographical conditions the wool growers of the Argentine and Aus tralia, for example, are able to pro. duce wool that is almost clean: which when thrown upon the Amer1- can market, places the wool growers of the West at a serious disadvantage. So runs the argument of the Tariff Bloc."
 But here is where, the 'rub'' comes in for the consumer and the nanu- facturer: Under the Payne-Aldr1ch rate of eleven cents per pound on ''unwashed' wool, 100 pounds, esti- mated 75 per cent. clean" could be brought in for total duty of $11.
 How Cost Would Jump.
 Under the proposed tb!rty.three. charge would total $24.75-a jump of $13.75.
 Or, allowing for a 'tshrinkage" of 40 per cent, sixty pounds of import ed "clean'' wool, under the new rate, would represent duty of $19 .8O-a virtual embargo against foreign wool
 Wool was on the free list in the Underwood bill. Senator Underwood and his Democratic colleagues will doubtless be heard from when the new rate is taken up by the Senate, as the permanent tariff bill, as passed by the House, carried duty of only twenty-five cents per pound, and then with @ limitation"
 But the Tariff Bloc" is just as confident of putting over what 1t de- sires to be incorporated in the new tariff bill as the Agricultural Bloc" was when it started it's long but sue cessfuI fight to secure the enactment of Iegislation intended to benefit the 1 farmers and livestock men not only | of the West and Middle West but Of the South.
 On the tariff issue, hwoever, the | South Is hardly likely to be found | this time with the West and the Mid d1e West-the usual division between and Democrats on a tariff walI' being regarded as an inevitable part of the coming bat .le over the new tariff bill.