Democratic Sentinel, Volume 16, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 18 March 1892 — MR. SPRINGER’S REPORT. [ARTICLE]

MR. SPRINGER’S REPORT.

THE TARIFF DOESN’T BENEFIT MANUFACTURING. A Strong Argument In Favor of * Revision of the Wool and Woolen Tariff— Tlie Reign of Shodtly—ln 1855—The Cordage Trust. /, Tlie Tariff Should Be Revised. Chairman Springer shows, in his report on the wool bill, that from 1867 the policy of high protective tariffs upon wool and woolens has resulted in disaster to the growers, manufacturers, and consumers. In considering the effect of the wool and woolens tariff of 1867 upon sheep husbandry, Mr. Springer says: “In 1868 there were 6,730,000 sheep in I Ohio; in 1870 the number had fallen to'l 4,928,000; in 1880 to 4,080,000; in 1883 6,060,000; in 1890 there were only 3,943,- ! 000 reported, while in 1891 the number was given at-4,061,000. Similar results took place in all the other States east of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The increase in the number of sheep in the United States has been in States west of those rivers or in localities where there was a free range upon the public domain. There were in the whole United States in 1868 nearly 39,000,000 sheep; at this time there are only 43,000, - 000, an increase of 4,000,000 in twenty years, the whole increase being in sheep upon the ranches of the West. “In 1867, the year in which the WoolTariff act was passed, there were only 38,000,000 pounds of wool imported into the United States, which was 19 per cent, only of the wool consumed in this country. In 1891 there were 129,000,000 pounds of wool imported, which was 30.8 percent, of the total consumption ot the country. Thus it appears that there is at this time 62 per cent, more of foreign wool consumed in this country, as compared with the whole amount consumed, than there was in 1867. The yrool-growers of 1867 believed that the imposition of high tariffs on wool would secure them the control of the home market. The result proves how greatly they were mistaken and how ineffectual the law has been to produce the condition which they desired. “As to its effect on prices, wool has steadily declined from 1867, when it was worth 63 cents per pound, in currency, to the present time. The McKinley act increased the duty on wool an average of one cent a pound. The result has been a fall in price of two to three cents a pound instead of a rise in price. After twenty-five years of experiment the result has been a reduction of one-one-half in the number of sheep in the States east of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and a reduction of one-half in the price of wool." Of the effect of the tariffs upon manufactures, Mr. Springer says: "Nor have the manufacturers of woolen goods been benefited by tlie imposition of high duties on : wool and woolen goods. There have beep many.seasons of great depression in their business and many petitions have been sent to CongresA asking for free wool. The manufacturers of woolen goods are divided in opinion as to whether wool should be placed upon the free list, but all concede the great disadvantage to which American wool, manufacturers are subjected' by reason of the tariff on wool. ■ ’ 11 - t ' ; “A statement of the Census Office shows that' if we deduct the idle establishments (271) and the shoddy establishments (94), which arc included for the first time in woolen manufactures, it will be seen that instead of 2,867 establishments in 1890, there were only 2,502 woolen establishments in active operation. This shows a falling off in the number of establishments between 1880 and 1890 of 187. The capital invested in 1890 also includes hired property to the Value of $17,742,000. A careful examination of this preliminary statement will show that woolen establishments have increased in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and in the New England States, but that, as a rule, there has been a failing off in woolen establishments between 1880 and 1890 in the Southern States and States west of the Alleghany Mountains. “It will be seen that the increase amounted to only 26.08 per cent., which is but little more than the increase of population. With an actual decrease to the amount of 174 in woolen establishments, and an output which merely keeps pace with the growth of population in the United States, it cannot be claimed that the manufacture of woolen goods has been in a flourishing condition during the last decade. With a high protective tariff on the raw material, and compensatory and high ad valorem duties on the finished product, and products limited to the home market, woolen manufacturers cannot even hope to increase their productions beyond the annual increase of population.” How consumers of woolens have been injured,'the following clearly shows: goods, or goods composed in whole or in part of wool, including carpets, are articles of universal consumption in this country. Their cost to consumers is very great. It is impossible to estimate accurately how much the people of the country expend on this account. Such goods are absolutely nec- • essary to the health and comfort of the people, and they are entitled to supply their wants in this respect at the lowest possible cost. “If the existing law imposing an'average of 91 per cent, on such goods when imported does not increase the price of domestic goods of like character, which do not pay any tax whatever, then the manufacturer receives no benefits from protective tariffs and should not object to their repeal. If domestic goods are increased in price by reason of duties imposed upon foreign goods of like character, the extent or amount of this increase is the measure of protection which domestic manufacturers receive. Just how much this protection increases the cost of domestlo goods to American consumers cannot be ascertained with accuracy. As all persons are compelled to use woolen goods, are also compelled to pay the increased cost by reason of the tariff, .whatever it may bo. ~ This exaction is taken from the many for the benefit of the few. Concerning the growth of the shoddy Industry, Mr. Springer says: “Notwithstanding the high protection accorded manufacturers of woolen goods, the quality of such goods has deteriorated frem year to year since the discovery of machinery for converting woolen rags into substitutes for wool. In 1860 there were in this country thirty shoddy establishments with an invested capital of $123,500, using in raw material $227,925, employing ,290 hands at an annual cost of $54,124 and with an annual product of $402,590. During the war the public became greatly prejudiced against its use, through its extensive use in the manufacture of inferior army clothing and blankets. The census statistics of 1870 showed an increase in capital invested in shoddy manufacture of 561 per cent., and an increase in the value of the produot amounting to 339 per cent. The shoddy produced in the United States in 1890 will amount to 100,000,000 pounds. The scoured wool produced in that year amounted to only 92,000,000 pounds. Thus it appears that the shoddy produced in the United States in the census year of 1890 had a greater cloth-producing power than all the wool which was produced in the United States for that year. i, “It thus appears that the high pro-

tective tariff on wool, which was enacted with the avowed purpose of aiding woolgrowers, has forced manufacturers to use a cheaper material than wool; and the competition which now threatens mostly the wool producers of the country comes from the ninety-four establishments manufacturing shoddy in the United States rather than from wool grown in Australia and South America."