Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 34, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 11 September 1891 — DEATH IN THE POT. [ARTICLE]

DEATH IN THE POT.

DAVID A. WELLS ON THE WOOL TARIFF. He Shows Its Effects in Increasing the Use <rf Shoddy—Consumption and Pneumonia from the Tariff Standpoint —How Our Death Bate Is Affected by Shoddy. The Wool Tariff. Hon. David A. Wells has recently written a striking article on the wool tariff lor the New York World. He takes as his text the Bible words, “There Is death in the pot,” applying them to the enormous development of the shoddy business by reason of the tax on wool, and the injurious effects of sholdy clothing' upon the health of the people. After calling attention to the analysis made by the New York Dry Goods Economist to show that our manufacturers, who favor a hi-h tax on wool use comparatively litt e wool in making their so-called “woolen goods,” while those manufacturers who are asking for free wool are makers of good, honest fabrics, Mr. Wells concludes: “In view of these revelations, Is it a mere coincidence, as the Economist pertinently asks, that the men engaged in the business of making bogus woolens and employing skilled designers, as they Undoubtedly do, not so much for producing attractive fabrics as for ingeniously hiding from the public their inferior nature, should be stanch advocates of a high tariff on wool; while the manufacturers of all-wool goods are in favor of free wool? Is not the explanation to be found in the fact that hightaxed wool means to its advocates a larger market for productions composed mainly of shoddy, cotton, cow-hair, and little wool? while the advocate of free wool feels that if he had all the wool markets of the world to draw from on the same bas sas his foreign competitors he could meet the large domestic demand for heavy woolens with goods made of all or nearly all wool. It is interesting also to note that while a large class of American wool manufacturers — such mei as E. B. Bigelow, J. Wiley Edmonds, Theodore Pomeroy, and their special representative, John L. Hayes—were unanimous in 1866 in characterizing shoddy as ‘a worthless material,’ and earnest in their petition to Congress to save the American people from the calamity of its use, the representatives and successors of these same men are now equally agreed that shoddy properly prepared -‘is an innoxious and most serviceable material,’ and that it is only through its extensive use that the Americau people can have cheap clothing and appear well dressed. Of course this latter proposition has foundation so long as a fiscal policy (which these same friends of shoddy advocate) is maintained that prevents the American people from having a proper and natural supply of wool, and which if abrogated would not only render the use of shoddy as a condition for producing cheap clothing to a great extent unnecessary, but would make feasible the production of clothing that was equally cheap, and at the same time warm, healthy and durable. In short, was there ever a better illustration of the wise ihaxim, that the great art in all cases of fraud upon the public is to get up a quantum sujjiclt of the wrong, and then set the abomination to defend itself, “Now, wherein is the pertinency of these facts to the Scriptural text adopted as the title of this article, ‘The.e Is Death in the Pot?’ Oust here: The tariff taxes imposed on that proportion of the wool consumption of the country —about 300,000,0.0 pounds— which tho country does not produ e. and which it is needful t? import, augment the price of all wool clothing to the American masses to a degree that they cannot or are unwilling to pay. Let any one who desijes to test this matter for himself Inquire at aijy respectable furnishing store the re ative prices of uhdobbtej all-wool fabrics', and of the fabrications that ordinarily pas i under tho name of woolens, and he will be abundantly satisfied. The result is that the masses buy at some popular price something for their clothing which is called ‘woolen,’ but. which is not rightfufly entitled to any such designation—something like the fabrics before referred to produced in Philadelphia, and analyzed by the Dry-Goods Merchant, which were composed of 72 per cent, of cotton and shoddy. The climate of the United States, especially of its northern portions, is,aseveryboJy knows, liable to sudden and extreme changes in temperature, and for the practically six winter months of the year, it is most essential that ail exposed to such changes should be warmly and substantially clad. No one in their senses, would knowingly venture into atmosphere charged with conditions favoring ‘grip,’ pneumonia, and the varied throat and lung ailments or diseases, clad in cotton ‘ garments. And yet this is exactly what the workingmen and poorer classes of the country do habitually under a tariff system that prevents the proper and healthful use of wool for the most ordinary clothing purposes. Docs not this condition of things also suggest a possible explanation of the fact that while the mortality from consumption and pneumonia in the United States is greater than from any other causes, the rate per 100,000 deaths annually in this country from these diseases is far greater than in the cold and* more damp climates of England and Wales. “In 1880 the morta'ity from consumption in the United States was at the rate of 12,059 in every 100,000 deaths and 8,330 from pneumonia. The corresponding figures for the same year in England and AV ales w. re 9,141 for consumption and 4,772 for, pneumonia “Certainty the man who wears the cheap coat, which the high tariff on wool compels him to wear, is like to become very cheap before he gets through Wearing it “Concerning the sanitary influence of the excessive use of shoddy in the United States as a material for the manufacture of clothing, a spirit of fairness requires the statement that when properly prepared, as it undoubtedly is in most cases, its original earthy or organic impurities are wholly or in a great degree eliminated from it or destroyed by the processes of carding, spinning, boiling, dyeing and (teaming to which ft is subjected in its conversion into fabrics, But as all these processes are costly and a?e. not primarily undertaken from sanitary considerations, the tendency Is to regard the purification of shoddy In its largest senae, in the course of its manufacture, as an incidental matter, In respect to which any special effort is not necessary. But be this as it may. 'ffhoddy is not wool, and if the wearers of clothing largely made from it and purchased because it is cheap could know of its genesis they would one and ail be •earnest and unco npromising opponents

of any law or policy, like our existing tariff, which restricts them from using wool, cheap, healthy and of far greater enduring properties, in its place. “The experience thus selected and above set forth as an Illustration of the Influences prejudicial to public health arising from Unnatural legislative restrictions on the free use of commodities that enter largely into the living and well-being of the masses is not exceptional. Many others similar and even more, striking might be cited. “Indeed it may be regarded as a general rule that when the natural and free supply of any article in common use by the masses is artificially restricted, the tendency Is to fall back upon and use an inferior substitute, and for the general plane of living to be thereby lowered. Bnch a policy undoubtedly is productive of ga n to a comparatively few, but is certainly a nemesis of evil to the many. • Divided Counsels at.the Helm. It is really painful to heat two such eminent statesmen as our President and Maj. McKinley expressing views so out of harmony with each other. The President waxes eloquent about opening “the markets of our sister republics tn Central and South America to the products of American shops and farms;* yet the great tariff-maker said tn Congress last year: “If we would inwade the world's markets harsher conditions and greater sacrifices would be demanded of the masses. * Alas, the good old ship Protection is veering about at sea tn a most Xlmless condition. There is first one helmsman and then another at the wheel, and no one seems to know what port they are trying to make. They are not even agreed on so simple a. question as whether foreign trade is a good thing or not Is the President willing to abandon his reciprocity dreams in order not to demand those “harsher conditions and greater sacrifices” from the masses? Or is McKinley willing this year to have our farmers enter markets in which last year he professed to see only the most ruinous competition for them? Yet even McKinley is now making public rejoicings on the stump in Ohio that our ‘foreign trade-is greater than ever. Where will these helmsmen steer their ship? *