, 1922-07-27

INNA VI lOU
know how much this wasteful legislation is going
to cost them, you will be protecting your own pusi.
ness and you will be doins your duty towards your
community,
misied by this tissue of falsehoods, paid for and
circulated by those who have a selfish interest in
aeieating a tariff because they are making hun
dreds of per cent profit on imported articles. Re
tail merchants SO deceived have written or wired
their senators or representatives in accordance
with the instructions in the letter. Senator Frank
wins, OF Ohio, received a telegram from a retail
mercnIn- IN his state who had accepted as the truth
the New York propagapdists falsehoods regard
ing tariff on wool and the price of clothing. To this
telegram Senator Willis replied as follows:
Il have your wire protesting against proposed
tariff rate of 90 cents per pound on secured con.
tent of imported wool and stating that if this rate
of duty is provided for the protection of the farm.
ers' product the prices OF suits and overcoats will
be increased from So TO So.
IF any ouch increase in price is contemplated
by manufacturers and retailers of clothing. con-
sumers ought TO understand that there is rot the
slightest justification or excuse for it in any tariff
rate in the pending bill.
Under the present law the tariff on grease wool
Is 10 cents per pound. Ordinarily it takes three
pounds of grease wool to make a pound Of secured
wool, therefore in effect the present duty on a
pound of secured wool is 45 cents, the proposed rate
is L. cents per pound less than under the existing
law. Yet you state if this rate of 80 cents per
pound is adopted-a rate of IL cents per pound low
er than the law now provides-retailers propose to
Increase the price OF wooden clothing 50 per suit.
rms state OF facts suggests an interesting query,
VIZ; III retailers and manufacturers increase the
price of a suit of clothes s. because the tariff on a
pound of wool is decreased from A. cents to 20 cents
how much would they mark up the prices of their
suits if the rate were reduced still further?
"1he mere statement of the case shows the utter
folly of claiming that a reasonable protective tar
Tiff on the farmers finished product, raw wool, nee
essitates any such increase in prices as your tele.
gram indicates. So far as the tariff on raw wool
has any effect on the price of wooden clothing.
manufacturers and retailers ought to lower the
price of suits to some extent to correspond with
the decrease in tariff rate on raw wool from As
cents to 30 cents per pound.
"The unfairness and absurdity of claiming that
the new tariff rate on raw wool ~justifies an in
crease of 50 per suit of clothes is shown in another
way. About three pounds of wool are required.
secured wool, 60 make a wooden suit. The total
amount Of the tariff on raw wool if it were all add
cd to the price of the suit would be only 90 cents.
Yet 1t appears from your statement that because
of a mere possibility of increase in the price of
raw wool on account of a tariff not to exceed 81.
it is proposed forthwith to increase the price SIS to
the purchaser of the suit.
This proposal to increase the price of suits is
out of all proportion to the increase which the tar
lff on raw wool would Justify and is in harmony
with the practice which is being followed by I'M
porters of raising prices unconscionably on their
imported wares. For exemple; table knives that
cost abroad 275 cents each are retailed here at 3Ol
cents, an Increase in price of 991 per cent; ladies'
gloves that cost abroad % cents per pair are retail
th NJ p ti DdI. dn U . per cent. straw
hats that are bought in England for 60 cents are
being sold in the market here at 81, an increase of
469 per cent; razors costing p cents in Europe are
being sold here at SO, an increase of 2,2S1 per cent;
linen napkins that cost abroad 1920 per dozen are
retailed here at $50 per dozen, an increase of 432
per cent: and yet these same gentlemen who have
been making these immense profits are filling the
country with transformation relative to the effect
that the new tariff law will cause great increase in
prices.
"As a matter of fact, the misinformation regard
ing the proposed tariff on wool and its resultant
effects on the price of clothing is only a part of the
propaganda which is being disseminated through.
out the country by importers and international
bankers who have grown rich out of the tribute
they have exacted from the people under free trade
laws and who realize that the raising of wool in
America to supply our own needs will deprive them
of an important source of their excessive profits
amounting in some cases to more than 500 per cent.
These gentlemen some of whom 1 regret to say, seem
more interested in encouraging industry abroad
than of fostering it at home apparently have no con-
Germ over the lamentable fact that under the free
wool provision that obtained before the present EN-.
Urgency tariff went into effect the number of sheep
in Ohio decreased to 2,102,000 in 1920, while the
number of sheep in the whole country declined from,
~64,OO0,00O head 20 years ago to only 80, 100000 now.
Free trade in wool has almost ruined the sheep
industry in this country. Free traders believe that
we should let the sheep industry die and make our
country dependent upon Australia and Argentine
for its supply of wool and mutton. This is fine for
the importers but bad business for the American
people. Free traders argue that We should buy our
chemicals from South America, our cloth from
England and France, our butter from Denmark and
so on indefinitely. If this policy is to be pursued
what are the people to do who are now producing
these commodities in this country and are capable
of supplying the home demand?
-0-