Smyrna times., 1922-10-04
LOOKS FOR DROP IN PRICE OF
WOOL CLOTHING NEXT SPRING
DUTY ON CLEAN WOOL 500
LOWER UNDER NEW TRAIFF
Senator SmOOt of Utah Defends the
Tariff Bill Just Passed By Con-
gress-Hits At Critics

greSS-HltS AT Critics
Statements that the tariff on wool
under the Fordney-McCumber act will
suit and on every heavy winter over
coat were challenged by Senator
Smoot, of Utah, ranking Republican
of the Finance Committee. Mr.. Smoot
said the duty of 81 cents a pound on
clean wool was so per cent. lower than
the rates carried in the Emergency
Tariff Act. He predicted that prices
of clothes would drop next spring.
at is the merest rot to claim that
the new tariff will raise clothing prices
to the consumer" Mr.. Smoot said.
In analysis of the difference between
rates on the Fordney-McCumber act
and the Emergency Tariff Act, in
which the basis rate was Is cents per
pound on wool reported in the grease,
Mr.. Smoot pointed out that woods i'm
ported after May 7, 1921, when the
emergency 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" he said,
"and are paying a duty of 81 cents
per pound on clean contents instead
of SIS cents"
On clothes for the spring of 1928
the American Woolen Company, ac-
cording to Mr.. Smoot, was able 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 eX-
planning the trend of prices, he haid:
"The foregoing simply means that,
in the judgement of those best qualifi-
to speak, the price of woolen clothing
should be cheaper in the spring of
1923 and thereafter than previously.
Statements to the contrary appear to
be camoufage put on to hide an in
tention to profteer 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 voluble critic of
the duty apparently believed in blum
derbuss accounting, and also uses
prOfiteering pyramiding in order tC
arrive at his increased cost over free
wool of S4 on a summer suit to S7.5C
on an ulster overcoat. This individual
gophers around like a basque shep
herd in bone-dry desert in his effort
to fortify the ridiculous estimate
which he gives the trade. There is M
doubt whatever that some manufac
turers of clothing would like to in
I crease their profits as he outlined, bu
competition for business will proven
any such reprehensible greed going OF
\ a rampage"
\ In substantiation of his statemen
R that "the alleged prospective pyramid
Y ing of the duty on raw wool is a fig
\ ment of the imagination" Mr.. Smoo
quoted from the Manufacturer, tn
publication of the Manufacturers Clul
\ of Philadelphia, to show that the in
n creased cost of clothing attributable t
v the Fordney-McCumber duty on ray
n wool should be only S1.14 on sprin
n or summer suit, only S1.62 on heav
Y winter suit and only s2.78 on a heav
n winter overcoat, as compared wit
1 IL L
U if there were no duty on wool.