Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 June 1891 — UNMASKING A HUMBUG. [ARTICLE]

UNMASKING A HUMBUG.

THE HOME MARKET CLUB ON THE WOOL DUTY. The Great Protectionist Club Puts Its Frot in It— says that Wool Prices Are Lower Under Protection—The Argument to the Farmer and to the Manufacturer— A Fast and Loose Game. The great Home Market Club, of Boston, has just struck a deadly blow at the •duty on wool. This club was organized for the special purpose of propagating the notion that the agricultural classes ■of the country are benefited as much by protection as the manufacturers themselves, since protection creates a home market, in which the farmer can sell his tproduce—never mentioning tbe fact, of course, that tnis same home market will not pay one penny more for such produce than the despised foreigner will pay. Recent developments in the woolen industry have brought before the lords ■of the Home Market Club the greatest •problem which they have yet had to face. Many of the best woolen manufacturers in New England have joined in an organized effort to secure the removal of the wool duties; and the Home Market Club has recently published a pamphlet to convert these manufacturers from their error. This pamphlet is entitled, “Protection of Wool—From the Standpoint of the Manufacturer.” Every farmer who grows wool ought to send to the Home Market Club for a copy of this pamphlet in order to see the style of argument used upon the manufacturer, and to compare this with the arguments made to the farmer. The protectionists are loud and earnest in their defense of the wool duty before farmers, since, as they claim, it increases the prices of American wool. Last fall when McKinley was running for Congress his backers went all over his district offering to make contracts to buy up all the sheep in it at s's a head in case McKinley should be elected. This meant high wool duties, high wool prices. But the great Home Market Club takes exactly the opposite line of argument. It defends the wool duty on the expressed ground that it keeps the price of American wool lower than it would be under free wool. This protectionist club seeks to prove to the manufacturers that the price of wool in this country for the past ten years has been from one cent to nine cents per pound lower than it has ever been abroad, and that the American farmer could have sold his wool from one cent to nine cents higher in Liverpool or London than he could sell it on his farm. Here are its words, which are printed In its pamphlet in large type, as the final argument and last appeal to the wool manufacturer: “It is a mistaken idea with many manufacturers that foreign prices of wool are necessarily lower than home prices under protection. They average higher. They would be much higher •but for a large and certain domestic supply. The following table is instructive. ” Here is the table it gives: Foreign average Average price . price of all wools at of all Amoriport of exportation can wools at without duty. the farm. Cts., lb. Cts., lb. 188131 1-5 31 188231 9-10 30 188334 2-5 29 188429 1-10 26 188532 1-10 23 188632 J-5 24 158729 1-10 24 Here the wool grower may see what a fast and loose game the protectionists have been playing with him. They have been carrying water on both shoulders, telling the farmer that the wool tariff makes the prices high, and then facing about and drawing tables of figures to show to the manufacturer that it makes prices lower. In this connection it may be of interest to the farmer to note the difference in domestic wool prices now and last year. Here are the quotations from the Boston wool market for some of the bestknown wools last August and for the current month: Aug. 7, June 11, 1890. 1811. Cents. Cents. Ohio and Pa. XX and above... ,33@34 31J£@32 Ohio X and above32@B2J£ 30 @3l Ohio No. 1 35 <u36 Michigan X2B <229)* 23 @29 Michigan No. 136@36& 34 ,«35 Michigan unmerchantable22@33 21 @22 Is it not time that farmers open their eyes to simple and indisputable proofs like this that a high wttol duty does not raise the price of his wool? However deeply set the Republican wool-grower may be in the notion that the wool duty helps him, ought he not to listen and be convinced when the greatest protectionist club in the land agrees that the duty keeps prices down? Let such a woolgrower .gend to the Home Market Club for its wool pamphlet and see for himself. It is doubtful, however, whether he can get the pamphlet fcr love or money, if he makes it known that he is a grower of wool. The Tax on Gloves. The glove paragraphs of the McKinley law show how much more heavily that measure bears upon the poor than upra the rich. On silk gloves the old duty was 50 per cent, and this was increased by the McKinleyites to 60 per cent, which is an increase of 20 per cent, upon the old rate. Upon cotton gloves, however, the old tariff rate of 35 per cent, was changed to 50 per cent., or an increase of 43 per cent upon the old rate. The same inequality is seen in the case of leather gloves Under the old tariff the duty on all kinds of leather gloves was 50 per cent, ad valorem; the McKinieyites changed the duty to an ad valorem rate, claiming that the new specific rates were equivalent to the old rate. But this is not the case. The •duties are so arranged that they run far above 50 per cent, on the cheaper kinds. On men's plain gloves, for example, the present duty is one dollar a dozen and 50 per cent, ad valorem. On gloves worth S 3 per do en, therefore, the present duty is equivalent to 83 per cent, while on gloves worth $6 the duty is only 66 per cent The same thing is found in the duties on women’s kid gloves. Some time after the new law went into effect the New York Dry Goods Economist pointed out . its effects upon these goods by saying: *ln women’s gloves the cheapest kid will be forced out of the American market, for the duty imposed on them is all out of proportion with the value of the goods, which are those patronized by the poorer classes, who are supposed to be assisted by the new duty. ” Woolen gloves, which are worn mainly by the poorer people, come in for an •enormous advance. Under the old law these were taxed at from 10 to 35 cents per pound and 35 to 40 per cent, ad valorem —making sing e duties ranging from 63 to <3 per cent. Under the McKinley law all woolen gloves are taxed •s “wearing apparel” at 49J< ceats a

pound and 60 per cent, ad valorem. This of course lays the heaviest burden on the cheapest goods. THE AGRICULTURAL MINNOW. Why He Canuot Be Pin-Hooked—Protec. tion Helps Him Not—Europe's Demand lor Wheat. Minnows will bite readily at an unbaited pin-hook to the great delight of the small boy. A similar unbaited pinhook was thrown into the agricultural pool by the McKinieyites in the shape of increased duties on wheat and corn, but the agricultural minnow will not bite. Although the Drice of corn is double what it was a year ago, and the price of wheat is very much higher, too, no farmer has yet been found who is silly enough to say that McKinley’s increased duties have had the effect of raising prices by even a fraction of a cent. Not even the wildest or most rabid McKinleyite organ, either, has ventured to claim the increased prices as among the “benificences” or the new tariff law. “Why is this thusness?” The farmer is too well informed to believe that McKinley’s wheat and corn duties can be worth a tin whistle to him, since he is selling millions of dollars’ worth of these very products in foreign markets; and the McKinieyites are too well aware of this to try to force the naked pin-book into his mouth. They know too well that the farmer will “shy off” under such treatment. The main factor in raising the prices of wheat and corn, aside from our own shortness of crops last year, is the large demand certain to come from Europe for this year’s crops, owing to an unusually bad wheat crop this summer. Already it is reported from New York that freight engagements are being made with the great steamship lines far out into the fall months for transportation of grain to Europe; and it is already predicted that Europe will take more of our wheat and corn this year than ever before. That is a pin hook with a fat bait on it, and no deception about it McKin'ey tries to belittle the foreign market, asking “what’ particular sanctity hangs about it” At any rate, the foreign market is a mighty good place to sell wheat and corn; and McKinley's agricultural minnows, though they refused utterly to bite at bis naked pin-hook duties, are quite intelligent enough to see that the more freely we buy Europe's products the more largely will Europe buy of us. And the farmer is quite willing to pay for those foreign goods on a basis of what James G. Blaine calls “friendly barter.” We ship away our surplus which we do not need and ship back Europe’s surplus, and both parties are richer by the operation. The agricultural minnow knows this, and hence the “reciprocity” bid for his vote.

Protection by False Pretenses. One of the most frequent arguments before the Ways and Means Committee, at Washington, from people who want new duties imposed or new ones increased, is that such duties will develop home competition, that this will force prices down, and the consumer will be benefited. None of these applicants for Government aid will confess that the protection asked for will keep prices up. On the contrary, we see the singular spectacle of hundreds of men paying the expenses of a trip to Washington to ask for duties on their goods, on the ground that these duties will bring prices down. Before the committee these men have much to say about promoting competition; they seem, in fact, to have overcome the law upon which every business man proceeds—the law that the less competition tnere is the greater profits will be. Every business man dislikes competition; but a deputation to Washington on behalf of any industry always appears to be willing to have as much home competition as any consumer could possibly wish. When, however, competition or other causes have reduced prices competition becomes unpopular, and the result is the formation of a trust to defeat the very competition which the manufacturers profess to be so anxious to promote. Are we to believe that the manufacturers are so superpatriotic that they wish more competition and lower prices, and all this for the good of the dear people? The numerous trusts and combines to prevent competition and raise prices are a sufficient answer to this question. Are we to believe that they want protection in order to raise wages? The great number of wage reductions since the McKinley law was enacted is satisfactory proof to the contrary. The truth is that manufacturers, like everybody else, want to put as much money into their own pockets as possible. The difference is that they run to Congress with false and hypocritical pleas to get laws which will enable them to feather their nests at public expense, while the great masses of consumers and 9 > per cent, of all the producers of the country are trying, by hard labor and small savings, to gather about them a modest portion of this world’s goods.

Our Thriving Shoddy Buslne'-s. Last year, when the McKinley bill wag before Congress, and many woolen manufacturers were opposing its increased duties on wool, it was said by the New York Dry Goods Economist that, “Manufacturers of goods from wool substitutes applaud the measure before Congress and are championing its proponents and abettors. ” The shoddy men were right in their forecast of the effect of the bill on their industry. They judged that by putting heavy duties on foreign wool, the new law would increase the use of shoddy and give the shoddy business a great boom. Well, the boom has come, in fact, it has been here ever since the McKinley law was passed. The following table, giving the prices of different kinds of shoddy in the Boston market last August and at the present time, will show that the confidence of the shoddy men in the McKinley law was not misplaced: Prices. Articles. Aug. 7, ’9O. June 11, "91. New clips— Cents. Cents. Fine merchant tailors ...11 @l3 13 @ls Good mixedlo @l2 11 @l3 Fine darkll @H 13 @l4 Good light clipsl7 @lB 18 @2O Fine b’.uesl7 @l9 19 @2O Black merincs, unseam'd.lo @ll 12 @12% Clear hoods 94$@101$ 12 @12% Cut cloth, dark 3%@ 4 4 @ 4% Cut cloth, blue7h@ 8 9Js@lo New pure indigo— Blue shoddy2B @3O 30 @33 New black shoddy, extra fine 23 @24 23 @2B Light yarn shoddy, extra fine3l @33 85 @.,„ Extracts— Medium 1ight...16 @lB 18 @2O Light 24 @25 25 @2B Fine light merinos2s @26 28 @.4. Fine black merinos 23 @25 2 4 @2B Ordinary mixedl3 @lB 16 @2O As an index to the present situation of the . shoddy business the following from the latest number of the Dry Goods Economist will prove instructive:

’ “During the past six months the bonding of now shoddy mills and the extension of old ones have beey of frequent report. ♦ * * The most, curious feature in this connection is that the largest manufacturer of all-wool shoddies is in Ohio, the homo of the finest flocks. Another mill in that State is I making such additions that by running double time, which it is reported it will do as soon as it begins operations, it will rank as the second concern of the kind in the country. ” The same paper estimates the shoddy consumption of the country at.BO,GOC,OCO pounds, “or a quantity that equals onefourth the wool clip of the country.” The shoddy and other wastes consumed in 1880 was 52,000,000 pounds. Are we not rapidly becoming a shoddy nation under the wool tariff?