''JT'5
5'ir''T
WV" " ,ror?Wl'll!Wfi t
T f -WaPI""""'
The Commoner.
JUNE 30, 1911
- wwt&W VWfl IWWPI WW
Is "Free Wool" Good Democratic Doctrine?
Representative W. A. Oldfield, of Arkansas,
(democrat) delivered a speech in the house of
representatives June 16. That speech ought to
bo read by every democrats, as well as by every
other American citizen. Mr . Oldfield wont
directly to the question, "Is Free Wool Good
Democratic Doctrine?" Read Mr. Oldfleld's
speech carefully, and then hand it to your
democratic neighbor. Here it is:
I am in favor of free wool, for the reason that,
in my judgment, it has been the policy of tho
democratic party for a great many years, and
for the further and more convincing reason that
it is right. (Applause on the democratic side.)
Mr. Chairman, let us examine the record and
ascertain, if we can, what the policy of tho
democratic party has been on the wool question.
In his majority report on tho democratic tariff
bill of 1886, Mr. Morrison, of Illinois, speaking
for the democratic majority of the house, mado
the following statement concerning wool:
When, at tho beginning, a revenue was found
necessary to our national existence, wool, with every
thing imported, was taxed. From then until now
some qualities of wool have paid some rate of
duty. For many years last past tho rate on im
ported wool has been more than double that Im
posed on other products of tho pasture, field, and
farm. Those other lower tax-protected products
have outrun or kept far in advance of the won
drQUS growth of our population. Wool, protected
double as much, has fallen further behind. Wool
finds its market at home and its price is increased
by the tax, part of the burden of which must
bo borne by tho grower of other farm products,
whoso surplus in foreign markets fixes his price
at home, and to tho increaso of which his wool
growing neighbor contributes nothing. Tho price
of wool has been downward for many years; it
declined when tho tax was highest and the protec
tion greatest. From tho statements of tho Ohio
and other wool growers' associations (see S. Ex.
Doc. 72, pp. 224-227) it appears that the market
price of wool Is not three-fourths of the actual cost
of production; that with tho existing protective
rate of 10 cents on the pound the price is still
10 cents below tho price at which it can bo profit
ably grown In tho great wool-growing states of
Ohio and Pennsylvania. It appears, therefore, that
tho attempt to make wool growing profitable by
tho use of tho taxing power has not been success
ful, while tho tax has been a great national hin
drance to tho woolen manufacturing Industry, as
well as a most grievous burden upon all buyers
of woolen clothing.
(Applause on the democratic side.)
Mr. Mills, chairman of the ways and means
committee of the house in the Fiftieth congress,
in the year 1888, used this language in report
ing the Mills bill to the house:
Wo say to the manufacturer. "Ave have- put wool
on the free list to enable him to obtain foreign
wools- cheaper, make his goods cheaper, and send
'them into foreign markets and, successfully com
pete with tho foreign manufacturer. We say to
tho laborer in tho factory wo have put wool on
tho free list that it may be Imported and ho may
bo employed to make tho goods that are now mado
by foreign labor and imported into the United
States. Wo say to the consumer wo have put wool
on tho free list that he may have woolen goods
cheaper. We say to the domestic wool grower wo
have put wool on tho froo list to enable the manu
facturer to import foreign wool to mix with his
and thus enlarge his market and quicken tho de
mand for the consumption of homo wool, while it
lightens tho burden of the taxpayer.
Tho duty on wool now prevents nearly all tho
better class of wool from coming into tho country;
the domestic product can supply, only about ono
half of the amount required for homo consump
tion. The statisticians of the agricultural depart
ment put tho domestic product for tho year 188T
at 265,000,000 pounds. Others place it higher, but
nono at more than half the annual consumption of
our people. It requires about 600,000,000 pounds
of wool and other fibers manufactured with it,
which are now paying duty, to supply tho annual
demands of home consumption. Why, then, should
we keep out by high duties tho foreign wools so
necessary to tho clothing of the people? The
Wool Growers association asks us to put on a duty
high enough to prevent tho Importation of all
wools. The Wool Manufacturers' association asks
us to put on a duty hig henough to keep out all
manufactures of wool. If congress grants this
joint request, what are the people to do for woolen
clothing? Aro the' people to be compelled by con
gress to wear cotton goods in the winter or go
without to give bounties to wool growers and
wool manufacturers?
(Applause on the democratic side.)
In the views of the minority of tho senate
finance committee on the Mills bill we find this
language regarding free wool:
The minority aro firmly convinced that besides
tho incalculable advantage to the whole country
which would result from the placing of wool on
tho free list It" Is easily demonstrable that no
class will suffer, but that each will reap his sharo
qf the benefit. With a consumption of 600,000,000
pounds of raw wool In 1887, and a population of 60,
000.000, tho average per capita consumption Is easily
reckoned at 10 pounds, or 50 pounds to the average
family of 5 persons, and the northern farmer, con
stantly exposed to tho rigors of our winters, con
sumes something moro than tho average.
It requires from 3 to 4 pounds of raw wool to
make a pound of cloth so that from 12 to 16
pounds of woolen clothing for tho family will bo
seen to bo a low average. This Is now taxed from
55 to nearly 90 per cent. Tho manufacturer Is
not benefited, becauso his finished product comes
into competition with tho foreign product mado
not only from untaxed wool but from cheaper wool.
It is reckoned that 3 pounds make a pound of
cloth, and when the manufacturer pays 10 cents per
pound duty ho Is supposed to bo compensated
therefor by tho specific duty of 35 cents per pound
on his woolen goods. Now, this is on tho assump
tion that 3 pounds of raw wool mako 1 of scoured
wool that is, that tho wool shrinks In tho clean
ing not above 66 2-3 per cent.
But many South American and other wools con
tain moro than that proportion of foreign matter,
running as high as 75 and 80 per cent. This wool
our manufacturer can not buy, because his tax on
tho cloth would then run from 45 to 60 cents per
pound, and his compensatory duty is only 35 cents.
Therefore, for theso wools the foreign dealer finds
no American competitor in the markot, and buys
them at his own price, and these cheaper wools,
untaxed and manufactured abroad, competo hero
with unfair ad van tag o with our own heavily handi
capped woolens, and successfully, too.
Now, If the tax be takon off wools, our manu
facturers at once becomo bidders for this wool
against tho foreign manufacturer, and, as a cer
tain consequonce, tho prlco will rise, and this
operates doubly against tho foreign manufactucr.
Ho buys his wools dearer and meets untaxed In
our markets corresponding grades.
Wo will Import moro wools, of course, and In
no other way can our great factories prosper, be
causo their capacity is beyond our own wool pro
duction. When tho factories are turning out moro
product tho omployos havo steadier work and
better wages, and, indiroctly, of course, tho wholo
country Is benefited.
Under tho houso bill the manufacturers, with
free wool, secure even a higher competitive advan
tage over the foreign than under tho present law
or the substitute. The manufacturers will export
woolen goods as wo now export cotton and leather,
and tho demand for the wool will better tho
wool market and encourago. Increased production,
while tho averago wool grower himself will reap
from cheapened clothing moro benefits than ho
over did from a tax on his product, which ho must
himself pay.
The minority, therefore, dissenting from tho re
port of tho majority, commend to tho senate and
the country the bill of the house of representatives,
No. 9051, as a measure for tho reduction of taxes
based aliko upon Justice and good policy.
As tho best exposition of tho effect of bill II. It.
9051 upon taxation and revenue, the report of tho
majority of tho committee on ways and means sub
mitted with tho bill to tho houso of representatives
lo hereto appended, with our concurrence.
ISHAM G. HARRIS.
55. B. VANCR
Z. W. VOORHEI3S.
Senator James B. Beck, another great demo
crat, filed a separate report on tho same bill,
in which he says:
The democrats seek cautiously and prudently to
reduce all taxation to the revenuo standard, so
as to take from tho people nothing except for
public uses and purposes and only such an amount
as is needed, to .support an economically adminis
tered -government, at tho same time taking caro
that no Injury Is done to any domestic Industry,
.even though unduly stimulated by protection on
whoso success .the employment of any consider
able portion of our people depends. They seek
to aid our manufacturers bv cheapening, wherever
it is possible, the raw materials from which finished
products aro made, so that tho markets for thorn
may bo enlarged and extended to other countries,
and steadier employment, which extended sales
necessarily give, bo furnished to those who produce
them. We seek thus to enable all of our people to
obtain what they need of those products with a
less expenditure of money they havo earned In
their various occupations than they can now.
In his report dated March 1, 1892, revising
tho woolen schedule by placing wool upon the
free list and reducing tho duty on woolen manu
factures to a revenue basis, Mr. Springer, of
Illinois, after submitting facts borne out by
government statistics, among other things makes
the following statement:
In view of tho many disadvantages and embar
rassments to which our domestic manu
facturers of woolen goods are subjected by reason
of the high duties on wool, and in view, also, Qf
the fact that the imposition of such duties has
neither benefited tho wool growers, the wool manu
facturers, nor the consumers of the country, con
gress should not hesitate to repeal the unnecessary
oxactions.
Further on in his report he uses this lan
guage: Woolen goods, or goods composed In wholo or
In part of wool. Including carpets, are articles of
universal consumption in this country. Their cost
to consumers rn very great. It is Impossible to
estimate accurately how much the people of this
country expend on this account. Such goods aro
absolutelv necessary to the health and comfort of
tho people, and they aro entitled to supply their
wants in this respect at tho lowest possible cost.
If the existing law. the McKInley law, imposing
an average tax of 91 per cent on such goods when
imported, does not increase tho price of domestic
goods of like character, which do not pay any
tax whatever, then the manufacturer receives no
benefit 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.
In the views of the minority members of the
ways and means committee of the house in 1890,
when tho McKinloy bill was written, I find tho
following language used:
Camel's hair, a raw material extensively unod In
this country in tho manufacture of certain kinds
of goods, and which has boon admitted free of duty
for a great many years, Is by this bill takon from
tho free list and subjected to a tax of 12 centit per
pound, which Is equivalent to 77 per cent ad
valorem. During the last fiscal year wo Imported
free of duty 6,618,007 pounds or this material, which
is absolutely necessary to enable Homo of our
manufacturing establishments to carry on their
business and supply tho goods they aro now mak
ing for their customers; but If this bill passes and
tho Riimo quantity Is Imported next year. It will
cost the people $797,771.61 In addition to tho valuo
of tho hair Itself. the bill, In fact, in
creases tho rates of duty on all classes of wool
Imported Into this country. These Increases havo
been made principally upon tho demand of a fow
large llock nuiKtcrs In the stato of Ohio, and they
will bo defended by the majority upon the alleged
ground that they are beneficial to tho farmers of
the country who keep sheep on their lands, Tho
fact Is, that wool Is ono of our least Important
agricultural products In point of actual value, and
by comparison with others even In the state of
Ohio. It does not amount to moro than 3 per cent
of tho total value of farm products In that state,
from which comes tho most constant and urgent
demand for high rates of duties, and it Is still loss
in other states.
This statement of the views of tho minority
members of tho ways and means committee,
which was presented with the majority report
on tho McKinloy tariff bill, was signed by such
distinguished democrats as John G. Carlisle,
Roger Q. Mills, Benton McMillin, Clifton R.
Breckenridge, and Roswoll P. Flower.
Hon. William L. Wilson, of West Virginia,
chairman of the commltteo on ways and means
in tho democratic house of 1893, in submitting
the report of the majority members of that com
mltteo with regard to imposing and regulating
customs duties upon articles Imported into tho
United States, used tho following language in
tho matter of tho woolen tariff:
Of the woolen tariff It may be truly said, as was
said of the woolen tariff of 1828, that it Is tho
masterpiece of tho ultra restrlctlonlsts and exhibits
all the worst features of tho system. Although tho
imports of 1892 show an averago duty of 95.82
per cent in the woolen schedule, It can not bo said
that woolen manufacture has been a flourishing
industry in thiH country, or that the American wool
grower has Secured remunerative prices for his
wool. With froo wool wo anticipate great benefits
to consumers of woolen goods, a revival of tho
woolen industry, such as that which followed tho
tariff of 1857, and a steadier and bettor market for
tho American wool grower.
Mr. Chairman, I havo read these statornentfl
for the purpose of showing Hint it has been tho
democratic policy for a great many years that
wool should be placed upon the free list. I havo
not selected isolated statements In tho speeches
of various members of congress and senators,
for tho reason that such statements might bo
subjected to tho criticism of the party and not
of tho party itself. Those statements repre
sented the policy of the democratic party at tho
time they were written. Hence, Mr. Chairman,
I feel that when I follow in the footsteps of such
distinguished democrats as Roger Q. Mills, Wil
liam L. Wilson, William R. Morrison, John G.
Carlisle, Benton McMillin, Clifton R. Breckin
ridge, Roswell P. Flower, Isham G. Harris, Z.
B. Vance, Daniel W. Voorhees, and James B.
Beck, I am on solid democratic ground. (Ap
plauBo on the democratic side.)
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is admitted by all
persons at all familiar with the subject that all
civilized nations except the United States havo
untaxed wool. Hence, in order that our manu
facturers may compete in tho open markets of
the world with an equal chance with foreign
woolen manufacturers, then, as a matter of
justice, our home manufacturers should at least
be placed on an equal footing with foreign
manufacturers so far as the raw wool is con
cerned. For this reason, in the present bill, and
in every other bill where a duty Is laid on wool,
an additional duty is levied on tho manufac
tured article to compensate and repay the manu
facturers for 4the additional price they are com
pelled to pay for their wool because of the duty
on tho raw material. This being true, I pre
ferred, when the bill was being discussed and
adopted in the democratic caucus on the first
day of the present month, that raw wool should
go on the free list. However, a majority of my
democratic colleagues, in their wisdom, de
termined otherwise. Since the caucus has
spoken, I shall support this bill enthusiastically
and sincerely, as it Is infinitely a better bill than
tho present law. (Applause on the democratic
side.)
Tho democratic caucus, on the first day of thte
month, at tho time this bill was adopted, also
adopted tho following resolution:
Resolved, That the blll revising Schedule K, as
presented to this caucus by the majority members
of tho ways and means committee, Is not to be
construed as an abandonment of any dmocratlc
policy; but in view of tho democratic platform's
demand for a gradual reduction of the tariff and
UMiJ"l.
i. jru' "--fJ iijlVt..,! v. . ih.A'it.-
i -dJIJ ' W
-mA E.
fguji'"
