Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 5, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 February 1892 — THEY WANT FREE WOOL [ARTICLE]

THEY WANT FREE WOOL

WOOL CONSUMERS PETITION CONGRESS. It I* Aske«l that Schedule K, Relating to Wool ami Woolen*, in the Tariff Act of 1800, Be Changed for the Belief ot Manufacturer* and for the Benefit of Consumer*. Petition of tile Association. To the Honorable the Senate and House ol Representative* of the United States: The Wool Consumers’ Association respectfully petitions the Fifty-second Congress to change Schedule K, relating to wool and woolens, in the tariff act of 1890, for the relief of woolen manufacturers, and for the benefit of all consumers of woolen fabrics. It is, of course, undesirable in general to change tariffs frequently, but the general principles of the act of 1890, as applied to wool and woolens, are the same as have been tried unsatisfactorily lor very many years, except that it aggravates some of the worst and most oppressive features of the former acts in relation to wool. The act has therefore practically been tested by the trials of many years, and there is no occasion to test it by longer I experience. It is not true that the act, in its present form, can work no harm to woolen manufacturers. It works the same injury to the makers of woolen and worsted cloth that the restrictions on the use of wool always have produced; and, in the case of the carpet trade, which consumes a very large pro- i portion of ail the imported wool, it is 1 the most oppressive act ever passed. The wool schedule <K; of the tariff act of 1890 offers an exceptional opportunity, by amendments making wool free and relatively decreasing both the specific and ad valorem duties on woolen goods, to benefit immensely the woolen manufacturers by giving them free access to the supplies of wool of various qualities, such as all other competing manufacturing countries enjoy, and by reducing thus without injury to manufacturers the cost of their goods to them and to the consumers, while leaving sufficient protection. With free raw materials, the tax on imports of competing goods would be almost entirely for the protection of labor, and us free raw materials would greatly increase the consumption, there would be an increased demand for labor. Neither is it true that no harm has come to consumers by the law of 1890. In tiie first place, the increased cost of wool, as compared with prices in Europe, has forced the use of cotton and other adulterants to a great and unusual extent; secondly, if woolen goods have not advanced, they might have been lower but for the duties on wool. There is no question among manufacturers that the act of 1891) was intended to advance prices, nor that it was well calculated to do so to the extent that consumers could afford. The almost j universal fall in prices was caused in j very small degree, if at all, by the tariff act of 1890. Tim tremendous losses In the Argentine Republic and elsewhere, the failure of the Barings, the distrust, caused by silver legislation, the low price of cotton in the South on account of an enormous crop, the failure of crops in tiie North and West prlorofO 1891, causing dull trade and reduced consumption, are the principal causes that brought distress and falling prices.

What those manufacturers and wool growers who arranged tiie wool sell dule with tho Intention,of Increasing prices want, is, no doubt, to lie let alone, so that the tariff act may produce under more favoralde auspices the results they expected and worked for. But the rest, that tiie public needs Is u permanent relief from taxes which oppress both them and manufacturers, which hamper the latter, as every manufacturer admits, and which largely Increase the cost of woolen goods to the public. The readjustment, of the tariff on the basis of free wool, is perfectly simple; it needs but the removal of the duties on wool and a corresponding reduction of the duties on goods which wore put on to offset tiie cost of the wool duties. Here is a great boon to every manufacturer of wool and every consumer. It is absurd to say that, because the duly Is taken off of one article, free trade must follow. Congress is npt. obliged to adopt free trade because tho duty is taken off of wool, any more than It was when it made jute or tea or coffee or sugar free, Tiie growth of the wool manufacture has undoubtedly been great during the past thirty years, for the country, with its vast natural resources and enormous immigration, lias increased vastly in population and wealth; but tho growth of the manufacture would be much moro prosperous and much greater with free wool, and its growth and prosperity mean larger use of domestic wools and higher prices abroad for all competing wools. It is clear from the statements of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers and from undoubted facts, emphasized by tho vast increase in tho imports of wool since the passage of the act of 1890 and by the falling prices of Ohio wool, that lids country produces practically no carpet wool to supply the demand for nearly 100,00(1,000 pounds needed by tho carpet manufacturers, and only u part of tho clothing and combing wools needed; and it is further to tie considered that the use of wool for so-called “woolens" would lie much larger if tho restrictions of the wind duties did not greatly reduce tho consumption of wool and largely increase tiie use of shoddy and cotton in so-called woolen goods. And tlilH is the ease after a long series of years of high duties on wool. In the theory of th - "now protection," it is laid down as a principle that “the necessities entering into the daily life of the mass of the people which we cannot economically produce should b.> made free. On this principle wool should certainly be made free. It is a most important article for all the people. It is produced in this country in inadequate quantities. Some indispensable grades can be produced in this country only under conditions unfavorable us compared with those of other countries. High duties for a quarter of a century have failed to produce any carpet wool in this country, and have also failed to produce an adequate supply of the wools needed for the woolen and worsted manufacture. And, as wool can be made free with a large reduction in cost of goods and with very little disturbance of trade or of interference with sufficient protection, it is only reasonable that the changes suggested in schedule K of the act of 1890 should be made for the benefit of the whole people. • Arthur T. Lyman, Jf.sse Metcalf, Wm. B. Weeden, G. C. Moses, Charles M. Beach. T. Quincy Browne, Ex. Com. of the Wool Consumers' Association.