Page images
PDF
EPUB

Summing up the cost of four years of Democratic blunders, the giving away of the American markets to foreign producers deprived our own Government of more than $203,000,000 of revenues which would otherwise have been collected in our custom-houses, and the present outstanding debt would have never existed. DEFICIENCY UNDER WILSON BILL FOR THE FOUR YEARS OF ITS OPERATION.

Deficiency for the fiscal year ended June 30

[blocks in formation]

The excess of expenditures over revenues thus existing was supplied from cash in the Treasury, as follows:

[blocks in formation]

Decrease in Imports under the Dingley Act. Following is the record of raw wool imported during the fiscal year ended June 30

[blocks in formation]

This table shows at a glance the enormous increase of wool imports during the Democratic Administration and the decline since the passage of the Dingley act. While the Democratic Administration was in power in 1894, the small imports of wool for

that year are accounted for by the fact that importers were holding back in anticipation of the reduced duties under the Wilson bill, which took effect August 24, 1894.

Taking the three-year periods of wool imports under the McKinley and Wilson acts, the following result is obtained:

1891,1893, inclusive, McKinley act. 1895-1897, inclusive, Wilson act.

450,408,138

787,797,405

Under the Wilson act the woolgrowers of this country lost by the equivalent of the amount of wool produced in foreign countries and imported into the United States the value of 337,389,267 pounds in three years as compared with imports under the McKinley act. In other words, the percentage of consumption of foreign wool in this country was:

1891-1893

1895-1897

Per cent.

99.6

146.7

or only 33.2 per cent per annum for the first period to 48.9 for the second.

The returns for 1898 show a reduction in imports of 220,779,014 pounds from those of 1897.

WOOL AND THE TARIFF.

[From the American Economist.]

No friend of protection can seriously consider the effect upon the American wool industry of the free wool provision of the Wilson tariff without expressions of the most profound indignation. There was really not the slightest excuse for such a complete reversal of revenue policy. It was simply brutal, and it had the appearance of vindictiveness on the part of its authors. It was un-American in the extreme.

The free-wool provision of the Wilson tariff resulted in the almost entire destruction of an industry amounting in value to more than $100,000,000, which industry had not only been making steady growth, but which, under continued favorable conditions, would doubtless have increased in importance year by year.

Through the operation of the Wilson tariff the value of the domestic wool clip of the country, comparing the fiscal year 1890-91 with that of 1895-96, was reduced more than one-half. The freewool measure was not demanded by any important interest, and it seems to have been urged by a desire to overthrow or, at least, to counteract the prosperous business conditions which had followed the inauguration and successful operations of the McKinley tariff.

The effect upon the sheep industry of the free-wool provisions of the Wilson tariff is indicated by the statistics of some of the

principal sheep growing States of the Northwest. In 1882 the value of sheep in Wisconsin was $3,518,287. By 1897, under the influence of the Wilson tariff, this value had been reduced to $708,722. In Minnesota the value of sheep fell from $1,447,829 in 1893 to $844,290 in 1896. In North Dakota the value of sheep declined from $1,173,699 in 1893 to $616,701 in 1895, while in South Dakota the fall was equally great. In Michigan sheep values were reduced from $8,512,679 in 1893 to $2,843,189 in 1896, and in Colorado from $4,263,673 in 1892 to $1,984,058 in 1895.

What is true of these States is also true of every wool-growing State in the Union. Influenced by foreign competition of free wool the growing of the staple became so unprofitable that whole herds of sheep were sold at the lowest prices ever recorded. In Ohio, where fine blooded sheep were raised, the value fell from $2 to $3.50 to 40 to 70 cents. Necessarily farmers who devoted their attention to this industry sustained heavy loss. In the fiscal year 1893-94, under the McKinley tariff, the consumption of wool in the United States was 346,654,904 pounds, of which only 55,152,558 pounds, or 15.6 per cent was imported. In the next fiscal year, under the Wilson tariff, consumption was 509,411,416 pounds, of which 39.8 per cent was imported, and in the following fiscal year this percentage of imported wool increased to 45.4 per cent; and, moreover, the imports of wool were, for the first time in nearly thirty years, in excess of the domestic production.

These figures clearly show that foreign importers were, as the framers of the law probably intended they should be, directly benefited by the free-wool provision of the Wilson tariff.

With free wool came depression in American wool manufacturing industries. Manufacturers who had been encouraged by the McKinley tariff to improve the class of goods, so as successfully to compete with foreign manufacturers, were discouraged, mills were closed, operatives lost their employment and distress prevailed. Foreign fabrics flooded the markets of the country to the exclusion of nearly all others, and those manufacturers who had been by voice and influence, seeking to secure cheaper raw material, through free wool, found that they were undersold and that they had greatly miscalculated the extent of European competition.

Manifestly, therefore, Europeans benefited, not only through free raw material, but through the broader market they obtained for foreign-made fabrics.

No sooner did a change in Administration indicate that there would be a speedy revision of the tariff than the European wool interests prepared to flood this country with their product, hoping thereby to continue in the enjoyment of this market at least until the American wool industry should naturally revive under the in

fluence of a protective tariff. The supplies of wool imported during the last half of the fiscal year 1896-97 were enormous. The largest importation was 95,559,933 pounds in April, 1897, nearly one-half of which came from Australia. Warehouses were filled to repletion, repositories for the staple were sought in every principal city, and extraordinary inducements were offered American consumers to purchase in advance foreign made goods.

industry, however,

The American woolen manufacturing promptly revived under the influence of the Dingley tariff, there was a marked increase in the number of mills opened all over the country, and consumption of raw wool was rapid. This consumptive demand has since continued good, as is indicated by the firmness with which prices are maintained. The baneful effects of the Wilson tariff are, happily, now gradually disappearing.

The statistical position of wool in Europe and in this country is such as to make it highly probable that the Dingley tariff will hereafter operate to prevent important foreign competition with the principal grades of wool grown in this country. The American wool industry will, therefore, be stimulated and it is believed that long before the close of this year all traces of the effects of the iniquitous free-wool provision of the Wilson tariff will have been entirely obliterated.

TARIFF AND PRICE OF WOOL.

Under free wool the price dropped to 12 cents per pound. The present price of wool is due to the protection afforded by the Dingley tariff bill. The market has now nearly reached the point at which wool can be imported under the new tariff. When our unwashed wool has reached the price of about 22 cents per pound the full protection afforded by the Dingley tariff will have been reached. Under the McKinley tariff of 1889-90 the price of wool was 22 to 24 cents per pound, which is the highest point it has reached in 12 years. Following this, for a period of two years under Grover Cleveland and no tariff, the price was about 13 cents per pound for unwashed wool.

Owing to the Dingley protective tariff the price to-day for unwashed wool is 20 cents per pound, and with the return of prosperous times and the consumption of the enormous amount of foreign wool brought in under free duty during the first half of the year 1897 we shall have reached the point where the wool will receive the full benefit of the tariff which will advance the price of unwashed wool from 2 to 4 cents above the present price. This will again revive the wool industry in this country and greatly increase the next year's clip.-Meadville (Pa.) Republican.

MONTANA'S SHEEP, WOOL AND CATTLE.

[From the American Economist.]

The extent to which Montana has been benefited by the Dingley tariff is shown in the annual report of the State Commissioner of Labor, Agriculture, and Industry. For the year 1897 there were owned in Montana 3,095,192 sheep, with a wool production of 24,012,498 pounds. The average selling price for the year was 11.58 cents per pound, against 8.01 cents per pound in 1896, and the values of the clips for the two years were, respectively, $2,780,647 and $1,745,402, a gain of more than $1,000,000 in favor of the clip of 1897.

In the abstract of the commissioner's report which has reached us no mention is made of the comparative market value of the sheep for the two years, but it is safe to conclude that Montana is no exception to the general rule of heavy increase in sheep values as the result of the Dingley tariff, and that at the rate of an increase of $1 per head the sheep owners of that State are more than $3,000,000 richer than they were a year ago.

Cattle in Montana have advanced in value $4 a head, and the shipments for 1897 amounted to $7,109,994, against $6,430,512 in 1896. It is, therefore, evident that in the three items of sheep, wool and cattle Montana's gain as the result of six months of protection has been about $5,000,000. This is a goodly sum, but it is only a fraction of the gross sum of the benefits which that State has realized from the reinauguration of the American policy.

« PreviousContinue »