Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-08-06
WOOLMEN ANSWER
TARIFF ARGUMENTS
Of MANUFACTURERS
Growers Dispute Argument
That Proposed Duty Would
Add to Consumers Bills.
Snecial TO The Tribune.

Special to The Tribune.
Helena. Aug. On q statement rs
sued this week by the wool market
ing department Of the American Farm
bureau federation, the wool rover
make answer TO arguments OF clothing
and cloth manufacturers against a
wool tariff. and explain the WOOL
growers position as producers and con-
srImers of wool. and reports state
ments of manufacturers that the pro-
posed tariff would take millions from
the pockets Of consumers.
Applying the duty upon the clean
yield, or the secured content OF grease
wool. has been recommended by the
present tariff commission. as 1t was by
tn commission Of 1910, is said to be the
most scientific and equitable method or
applying a duty on wool" says the
growers statement, simply because
the clean yield is always the price
regulation factor. The clean yield is
what the manufacturer pays for. IN
asmuch as this differs greatly IN Oil,
ferent grades. it is easy to understand
that this would be the proper OASIS
upon which to apply a duty.
I'VE stand for a square deal 13r
agriculture and the wool growers l.
the difference in cost of production or
lOTelE0 anu uVillGSLit PIouuNt
the measure that fixes duties upon
manufactured articles, then the farmer
and wool grower sould be accorded the
same degree of protection. But the
have not even asked a duty
equivalent to the difference in cost or
production of foreign and domestic
woods. This propaganda against wool
growers and agriculture is not only
being promoted by a small group OF
clothing manufacturers. but also By a
small group of wooden manufacturers
who do not speak for the majority.
Will Not Boast Costs
Clothing and cloth manufacturers
say: That the proposed tariff Of 81
cents per clean pound will increase the
cost of suiting made from oil wool
s si?5a 90 ~
..The growers reply: 1T requires 9.s
pounds of grease wool to manufacture
cloth for an Atwood suit of clothing
0.S pounds at 20 cents. the average
price received by growers for 10000
900 pounds of 1921 pooled woods would
be 81 .96, the total amount received
by grower for wool required to manu-
facture a choice suit. providing only
virgin wool is used. Much Of the 1921
clip was sold on a market protected by
en- emergency tariff, which Is higher
than the proposed tariff schedule
Manufacturers assert that a tariff
on wool will add. variously stated. from
$50. OOO. 900 to 1851, 100000 to the an
nual clothing bill Of the consumers
ITO this the growers reply: The
total value of the 1921 domestic clip.
estimated at S0.OOO,OO0 pounds. at
20 cents, the average price per pound
received ed t hy t the s gro r. amounts sst;n.+t to 2
value Of the 1922 clip Of 100000. 900, at
33 cents. after the tariff has been eff
feet for over one year would only be
$50, 100000: then how can the wool
grower and the tariff be responsible
for $50 to 361 million dollars increase
in clothing values when the total
amount of money received by the grow
ers for their clip is considerably less
than half of the estimated increase to
the consumer by reason Of the tariff,
as set forth in the clothing manufac-
turers' statements"
YIN c. etaosihra etaohr retar rfotta
"The manufacturers aver that the
proposed duty of SO cents per clean
nound content is SO per cent higher
than the rates in the old Payne
Aldrich bill, which provided IL cents
per grease pound duty
''To which the growers say: The
provisions Of the Payne-Aldrich bill Of
II cents per grease pound duty on
wool, and the manufacturer compen-
satory duty of "A cents per pound Of
cloth and an ad valorem duty in add
ton thereto, have been In effect the
majority of time for so years. This re-
lation between the grease duty and
the manufacturers duty is based on a
3 to ! ratio. or on an estimate of 30 1-3
-..,-Ir ~ 1oo~ x-4N1 frnn 1n0 rerrlu
of grease wool. This is the ratio that
has been used by the manufacturers
and is also the ratio the wool growers
use in arriving at the 83 cents per
clean pound duty. and upon this esti-
mated shrinkage the SO cents per clean
pound is exactly equivalent to the IL
cents per grease pound of the old
Payne-Adrich bill; so where is the SO
per cent increase IN the present rates
over those that have been in effect for
40 or 80 years"
Growers Ask No Favors
'"The theory upon which the present
tariff bill is being prepared and the
one upon which manufacturers base
their argument, is that the rates Of
duty shall be equal to the difference
and domestic articles. This Is the basis
uIpl Will III II PAVPooOA Al
clothing manufacturers are allowed a
duty on clothing Of every description
wholly or in chief value of wool valued
at not more than 81 per pound, 33
cents per pound and 45 per centum
ad valorem.' The growers are not even
asking as much as the difference in
cost Of production Of foreign and
domestic woods. This would amount to
approximately 1S cents per grease
pound, as was indicated by recent tes-
timony before the senate finance com
mittee by special representatives to
Argentina of the Z. s. tariff board.
The manufacturers are advocating the
difference-in-the-cost reproduction rule
as governing the amount of duties
upon their products, but seek to deny
the wool growers the same privilege
they. the manufacturers, enjoy.
For a number Of years preceding
May q, 1921, the date upon which
the present wool tariff became a law,
wool was on the free list, while cloth
ing was protected by the relative high
duty of As per cent ad valorem. No
complaint was heard from the manu-
facturers then. because they had a