Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 12, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 April 1891 — THE TARIFF ON WOOL. [ARTICLE]

THE TARIFF ON WOOL.

<HOW M’KINLEY’S WOOL DUTIES WORK. J Higher Duties on Carpet Wool and Higher Prices for Carpets—What the Manufacturers * ay—Why Fine Ohio Wools Are Lower—Manufacturer.) Becoming FreeTraders. Mr. Arthur T. Lyman, of the Lowell Manufacturing Co., Boston, points out ’that the McKinley duty on carpet wool has caused an increase of 10 per cent, in the price of wool carpets “This advance,” he says, “was owing purely to the McKinley wool duties, and no advance would have taken ph.ce if the bill had not been passed. If the duty on wool had been removed, the price of carpets would have been reduced. ” In a private letter Mr. Lyman says; “As to the prices of carpets, we know the effect of the McKitaley duties perfectly, because we practically fix the price of carpets for the trade, and we ielt that we could hardly hold our old prices if the McKinley bill did not pass. It is an immense annoyance, but for the moment it helped us, because we had bought a big stock of wool before it passed. ” Mr. Lyman also calls attention to the fact that practically all the carpet wool used in this country is imported, our sheep growers not finding it profitable to produce carpet wool worth from 10 to 15 cents a pound, while they can grow better goods suitable for clothing and worth from 18 to 34 cents. “At one of the hearings in Washington on the wool duties, ” says Mr. Lyman, “Col. Shepard, of Texas, is reported to have said that he knew very well that the shepherd kings of Ohio wished to have Texas and the Territories raise carpet wool, so that they should not interfere with Ohio fine wool, but that for himself, he would guarrantee not to <raise carpet wools, knowing, of course, that they would not pay. McKinley raised the duty on carpet wools, “and that,” said he, “has necessitated an increase of the duty on carpets themselves. ” Accordingly carpet duties were raised from equivalent ad valorum duties of 40 to 60 per cent, to duties reaching from 50 to 85 per cent. But even the old duties, as Mr. Lyman points out, practically excluded carpets; yet this exclusion, he says, has not made them as cheap as in Europe, “in spite of the excessive competition at home which has made the business unprofitable. ” The only thing that stands in the way of making carpets much cheaper is the senseless duty on carpet wools, These duties are 32 per cent, on the cheaper wools and 50 per cent, on*the higher grades. As we do not raise carpet wool, the only reason why the Ohio political shepherds wanted a higher duty on it was to prevent the American people from making their clothing out of it; and, as shown above, to force Texas and the Territories to raise it and thus withdraw them from competition with Ohio in clothing wools. In this way it was hoped by the Ohio clique that the higher duties ■on clothing wools and on carpet wools would have the effect of raising the price of the Ohio product. Such, however, has not been the result. On the contrary, the clothing wools of Ohio and Michigan are lower in price than usual, and the tendency among the manufacturers is to use more largely the high-priced Australian wools, despite the increased McKinley duties. Why is this? The American Wool Reporter supplies the very simple answer. It says: “Manufacturers have found that by buying Australian wool even at 42 or 4234 c per pound, and mixing it with territory, Texas or California they can attain better results and at a cheaper cost than by buying Ohio xx wool even at 33 or 3334 c. This also accounts for the fact that territory wools have teen so unusually well cleaned up this year. Manufacturers have neglected domestic fleeces, and if the present state of things continues it will not be long before dealers in Ohio wools in Eastern markets will be few and far between. With the increased duty on woolen goods, manufacturers can make a finer grade of goods without coming in competition with those of foreign manufacture, and it is quite likely, as things look now, that Australian wool will be more and more in demand as the time goes on. The manufacturer prefers Australian wool even at the advanced cost. Why? Because it is put up better; it is cleaner; it shrinks less; there is less waste and there are fewer tags in it than in domestic fleece. It does not contain so many tarred ends, so many pounds of strings, and so much burry stuff as Ohio and Michigan fleeces.” The Reporter warns the Ohio and Michigan growers that they must improve the condition of their wool and not depend solely upon the tariff to insure higher prices. “A high tariff alone,” “will never bring domestic fleeces into favor and increase the demand therefor. The domestic growers are realizing this through experience. If domestic wool, which comes in competition with foreign, is to sell, there must be an improvement in the present methods of producing and preparing it for market. ” A correspondent of the same journal, who is evidently a manufacturer, explain's the matter more in detail. He says: “In order to produce goods at the lowest cost, it is necessary to obtain a maximum of production, as the greater the number of yards turned off the lower the cost of production per yard. It is the aim, therefore, of the average manufacturer to make as nearly as possible ■one line of goods, and his purchases of wools are with the view of getting the quality, or ‘leading sort,’ required to make such goods. If Michigan or Ohio wools are purchased, and a strictly clear, fine sort is required, not more than half and frequently a smaller percentage of such sort is obtained from a fleece, and tne undesirable qualities accumulate from month to month, until, alarmed at the quantity’, the manufacturer makes other grades of goods to consume this accumulation, and dispose of them at a loss.” It is well known that the oppressive wool tariff is rapidly maki.ng free-traders of our most energetic and progressive manufacturers. Mr. Lyman, already quoted, says: “Probably more than 50,000,000 of the people of this country would bei better off with free trade with all the world, such as is enjoyed with such immense advantage to all between the States of the Union. ”

A Costly Industry.

An industry which yields a profit on the money invested in it is a good thing to have in a community; out the desire to have industries established frequently becomes a craze. Beet sugar factories may b« good things to have,

but wha£ an saormons cost to establish them under the present bounty system. The pioneer beet sugar factory In this country is the one at Grand Island, Neb. This factory can handle 350 tons of beets a day. Allowing 12 per cent as the raw sugar product from beets, the daily yield at this factory would be 42 tons. As the State of Nebraska pays a bounty of 2 cents a pound, and the United States Government an equal bounty, the Grand Island establishment will collect from ie public a tax of 4 cents a pound on all the raw sugar it turns out, at the same time that refined sugar is selling at 434 cents a pound. In other words, besides getting the current market price for G sugar, the factory will net a bounty equal to more than the price of its raw material. The bounty to be paid to this establishment by the State of Nebraska and the United States Government will amount to $3,763 a day. Of course industries can be established in this way at public expense. But does it pay? Is it a proper or wise use of the taxing power to employ it for the enrichment of a purely private enterprise? The people may pay too much for whistle.

THE FOREIGN MARKET.

Why Our Manufacturers Sell >o Little Abroad—hack of Enterprise—Why Foreigners Beat Us. While our manufacturers are in the habit of leaning upon the Government to protect them in the secure possession of the home market, it is evident that they exert themselves very little to obtain a market in foreign countries. The present interest in the subject of reciprocity with South America and the West Indies calls out frequent communications from American merchants doing business there, which show that our manufacturers are very remiss in pushing their trade in those markets and in studying the wants of the people th ire. A correspondent writes’from Kingston, Jamaica, as follows: “Kingston merchants told me that as yet American manufacturers do not’ cater to the tastes of the islanders. For instance, a dealer showed me some Austrian shoes which were selling well. A few of American make which he had in stock had stayed there month in and month out. The Austrian shoes had very pointed toes, the sole being shaped like a flat-iron, but they were what the natives liked. The shoes from the States were much handsomer, better made, and superior in every way. But they were not the right shape, and were much higher in price. Cheapness is the great desideratum. Everything must be cheap and look well, no matter if it doesnot wear any time at all. The negroes would rather have a shoe with a paper sole that would not last turought the first rainstorm and pay a dollar for it than pay four for one they could not wear out in months. ” Another writer tells, in the New York trade journal Hardware how British manufacturers accommodate themselves to the wants of the people for whom they make goods. “For all parts of the world," he says, “they manufacture goods with reference to the local demand, laying British preferences entirely aside. It would be difficult to buy a mackintosh in England similar to the great mass of those sent over for the market of the United States; every Chola woman in Eastern Peru wears a peculiar shawl knit in Manchester in exact imitation of the old cotton shawls which the Indians had for ages previously made with their own hands; and the trapiches, or sugar mills, for the Amazon Valley are designed after those formerly constructed by the natives out of the hardwoods of their forests. ” Protection has operated to make our manufacturers dependent upon the home market and to make them ignore the fdreign market. It has tended to make them lose confidence in themselves and to distrust their ability to meet the “pauper-made goods” of Europe in successful competition in the markets of South America and other countries. They need to regain the spirit of enterprise and conquer a foothold for themselves in foreign markets. They have the advantage of the cheapest and best labor in the world. There is thus no excuse for shutting down factories when the home market has been supplied, and standing id.e till consumption overtakes production.

Bismarck on McKinleyism.

Somebody started the report, about the time when Congress adjourned, that McKinley was going to Europe this summer; and it was even stated that a visit to Bismarck was to be a part of his plan. It was evidently supposed that the two great tariff makers of America and Germany would find a bond of sympathy between them which would make such a visit highly agreeable to both, especially as the two are now retired to the rural shades of private life. But whether McKinley would now enjoy a visit to Bismarck is very doubtful, as the latter has been expressing his opinions very freely concerning McKinleyism. To a correspondent of the New York World Bismarck said the other day: “I think that in passing the McKinley bill the Republicans made a mistake, politically as well as economically, which can never be repaired. The excesses which they have committed must result in favor of the Democrats. I myself am a protectionist. My opinion has always been that national labor must be protected. The adversaries of protection think that protection can only be for those who are not producers, but merely consumers. “In passing the McKinley bill the industrial protectionists have gone too far. They went so far beyond the mark as to affect agricultural interests strongly and force them over to the opposite side. Such excesses affect the national consumers far more than the foreign importers. It is the task of the state to see that consumers obtain their right. The McKinley bill has hit some industrial branches of foreign nations hard, but on the whole it has not done so much injury as was at first feared.”

Ostriches in California.

The first pair of ostriches ever brought to this country for breeding purposes was landed at New Orleans in 1883. Others followed, and an ostrich farm was started as an experiment in Louisian, but the climate proving uncongenial to the birds the stock was removed to southern California. Here several experiments were tried, and it was found that the climate of San Diego County was the best adapted to the raising of ostriches. Here the industry has flourished to such an extent that realestate agents now include ostrich eggs in telling of the various “fruits”; favored by the wonderful climate of San Diego County. There are now in all about 125 birds in Southern California, yielding an an-

nual crop of feathers to the Talue of SIO,OOO or more. Quite a demand has sprung up for “native” ostrich feathers. The secret societies of the Pacific coast, snch as the Native Sons of the Golden State, the higher orders of the Masonic and Odd Fellows organizations, and other societies, pride themselves on wearing “native” ostrich plumes. Fans and other articles of ornamentation, made from native ostrich tips, are quite a fad among the ladies of the Four Hundred of the Golden State. /Nor is the demand limited to the ladies of the Pacific coast, for Mrs. Vanderbilt set the fad in New York by ordering a cloak made from California ostrich feathers. The 125 ostriches in California may not be looked upon as constituting an industry of national importance; but they are not overlooked by the tariff makers. There is a duty of 10 per cent, on crude ostrich feathers, and 50 per cent on feathers manufactured wholly or partly.

WANT A HAT TRUST.

An Effort to Combine All the Wool Hat Manufacturers McKinley’s Duties on Hats. A scheme has been on foot to combine all the wool hat makers in the country into a gigantic trust. Officers were elected, and for a time everything seemed to go well, but more recently there has been a hitch somewhere, and it is even announced that the trust has fallen through. In the meantime let the people observe what McKinley did to make a hat trust possible. The McKinley duties on wool hats show a sharp increase upon the old rates. The duties in both the old law and in the present law are so-called compound duties—that is, there is a specific duty of so much per pound and an ad valorem duty in addition. Thus on hats valued at 30 cents a pound or less the old duty was 10 cents a pound and 25 per cent, ad valorem, the compound duty being equal to an ad valorem duty of 68 per cent. The corresponding McKinley duty is 1634 cents per pound and 30 per cent., the two duties here being equivalent to an ad valorem duty of 85 per cent. Hats of the next class are those valued at more than 30 and not more than 40 cents a pound. The old duty on this grade was equivalent to 65 per cent, and the McKinley duty 90. The next grade of hats under the old law was that valued at between 40 and 60 cents a pound. The McKinley law makes this class stop at 50 cents and adds a class covering those between 50 and 60 cents per pound. Thus under the old law hats in the class between 40 and 50 bore an equivalent ad valorem duty of 71 per cent., and under the McKinley law the equivalent ad valorem is 101 per cent. On hats worth between 50 and 60 cents the equivalent in the old law was 68 per" cent.; in the McKinley law it is 112 per cent. The next class in both laws extends from 60 to 80 cents a pound—the ad valorem equivalent being 72 per cent., and the McKinley ad valorem 100 per cent. The last class in both laws covers hats valued at above 80 cents a pound. The old tariff levied a duty hear which was equal to 69 per cent.; and McKinley made only a slight advance in this highest class of hats, his equivalent ad valorem being 71 per cent. Having gotten above the range of the poorer class of buyers, he saw no good reason for increasing the duty very much. The equivalent ad valorem duties hers given are obtained by combining ths pound duty and the ad valorem rate and calculating them upon the value of hats imported. Almost no wool hats have been imported for some years. Even in 1882 it was stated before the Tariff Commission that only S6OO worth was imported. At the same time a hat manufacturer stated that the manufacturers did not favor a high duty on hats, and that they were even willing to see hats come in free if they could have their raw materials free. He said that the manufacturers had “no trouble with the wool hats imported into the country at all.” Yet at this late day McKinley builds higher the tariff wall against foreign hats and prepares the way for a trust

A Dead Give-Away.

Another high protectionist organ has given away the protectionists’ case. Tills is the rabid Boston Journal, to which a correspondent sent the following question: “If the protective tariff on steel rails has, as Mr. Morrill, Mr. McKinley, and others say, caused a cheapening of the price of that commodity, why do they advocate a tariff on wheat and other farm products while professing to be the farmers’ friend?” In answer to this question the Journal replies: “We do rot know any protectionist authority who has Over claimed that it is the prime purpose of protection to cheapen products.” So, after all, the object of protection is not to cheapen commodities! Let us then have no more lying on that point!

Muscular Rheumatism.

Muscular rheumatism is more simple and common than any other sort (if it can be properly called rheumatism), and can be treated successfully at home. Any good liniment can be used with rubbing as ’vigorous as can be borne by the patient, but I prefer oil of Wintergreen externally and internally. Externally, rub it ia well and then wrap up the part affected with flannel. Internally, take every two hours from two to five droys of it in a little water until the pain lessens. In all cases of rheumatism, cooling laxative medicines should be used. They are better than active cathartics. I would recommend laxative mineral waters or salts, either Epsom, Glauber, or Rochelle, preferably Glauber. Better than all remedies, let me advise prevention. Keep dry and warm and well protected as ' much as possible, but in case of severe exposure to cold and wet, as soon as possible take a bath in hot water with thorough rubbing. Put salt in the water so that it is almost weak brine, and rub down afterward with alcohol. Drink two cups of good hot tea and go to bed between woolen blankets, or put on a good warm dressing-gown and toast yourself before the tire. You may consider this troublesome, but let me assure you that you should ward off an attack of rheumatism, especially as the second attack comes more readily than the first. Once you have rheumatism and you are predisposed to it for life.— Neu) York World. The President ol (.he Sugar Trust has recently testified tm|t the cost of refining sugar is three-fourths of a cent per pound. This being the entire cost of refining, it was a gross absurdity in the McKinleyites to give the trust a (protective duty of a half cent per pound to protect U from foreign competition.