The Blight On Wool

In a recent Interview wit'ii b correl)oii(!iut of the Cleveland Leader, Mr. JuBtice, of tflie finn of Jptice, Batemam & '., a man who te probalbüy tibe best posted ïaan on wooJ nmd woelen textiles of any man is America, is crediteö wttto thts statement oí the case : "The statesmen who outlined the policy of tlie present administraron in passing the Wilson bilí claimed that tree wool would give American manufactmers the markets of the world, and ingtead of being Hmited in the sale of their productions to the American market, as heretofore, they could invade foreign markets," he began: "We a:e now half way throunh the second year of actual experience with free wool. Have the predictións made by the eminent statesmen who shaped the policy of the present administration been rcalized? I want to refer particularly to the quantities of woolen taxtiles imported durinii the years 1891 to 1895. The first four years were under the McKinley law, and the last was the first full year under the Wilson-Gorman law. The average annual importations of wooleñ textiles during the McKinley peiïod were valued at the custom houses at 29,500,000. In the first full year of the present law they were 57,500,00, an increase of 95 per cent over the average of the whole McKinley period, and an increase of 252 per cent over the importations of the year of 1894, the last year of the McKinley law. "Instead of biving invaded the mar kets of the world by reason of the repea of the McKinley law, we have narrowei our home market nearly one-half, thu CLOSINO MANY MILLS and throwing workmen and workingwomen out of employment, lf the woolen goods imported iu 1895 in excesa of the imports of the previous year had been made in America, of American wool, it would have taken more than half of the American clip to produce them. It would have distributed $20,000,000 t American wool growers, and it woul have distributed $20,000,000 in wage among one class of labor, narnely, Amei ican woolen operators. "Can any one form an estimate o what the loss of $20,000,000 in wages t a single class of American working peo pie means ? It is fair to assume tha each dollar paid out in wages for labo circulates flve times over within th year. This is to say, the $0,000,00 whicli was lost by factory operatives b the loss of the woolen goods importec over and above the amount imported in the previous year, is equivalent to a loss in the purchasing power of the American nation of $100,000,000. "The increase in textile imports in 1895 over 1894 was 242 per cent. Consider now the imports of raw wool in the year 1895, in coinparison with those of the McKinley period, which averaged over 100,000,000 pounds annually. The increase in the first full calendar year of free wool was equal to 97 per cent, or, in other words, the quantity of raw wool imported in 1895 was nearly doublé tlie average of that imported in a single year. We have liad the wool of the world dumped upon us at a time when our consumption of wool has been narrowed nearly one-hali by the inundation of foreign textii.es. "The American farmers are to-day holding wool which they cannot sell at much more then half of the old McKinley price, because the American markets have been flooded with the former surplus supply of wool of the world. Just think, the increase in wool importa in 1895 over the average of the three and two-thirds years of the McKinley law was 122,70S,995 pounds, or 97 per cent. "It was stated by the statesman who advocated the repeal of the McKinley law, that free wool would mean such cheap wool that there would be a decrease in the use of shoddy. Have these predictions been fulfilled? Previous to the repeal of the jMcKinley law there was very little shoddy imported. The shoddy then used in America was made from American rags, and there was less than 250,000 pounds of shoddy, etc, imported in an average year. The AVilsonGorman law went into effect four months before the close of 1894, and during the last four months of that year the imports of shoddy had increased to over 400,000,000 pounds, and during the first l'ull year of the present law over 20,500,000 pounds of shoddy, waste rags and other such adulterante were mported. The increase over the whole McKinley period was over 20,000,000 pounds, au increase of over 8,265 per cent, and instead of using less shoddy American manufacturera are now using MORE SIIODDY THAN EVER BEFORE, and why? Because of the loss of the home market for woolen textiles, our manufacturers were compelled to lower their prices for the woolen product, and in no other way could they do this except by the use of the shoddy, and although the price of pure scourged wool has fallen nearly one-half, or from 65 cents to 35 cents, the foreign coinpetition was so keen that nothing but a tremendous use of shoddy would enable thein to run their milis at all, and with's tanding this enforced adulteration of tlieir goods h'y the uee of shoddy, they still lost tlie best portion of their home market. "As there was 110 scarcity of wool or woolens durÏDg any of these ycars, it is fair to say that the qnantity tlien imported was enough for the eiitire wants of the American people undernormal cor.ditions, and was enough for the American people vvhen their purcliasing power was at the highest. If this is so, the imports for 1895 we re more than twice enough for a single year. Consideriug that the purchasing power of the nation has heen impaired, and even admittiug that the increa&e in population in 1S95 required a larger use of wool than for the average of the McKinley period, it is still evident that the first year of f ree wool has caused this nation to enormously over-import wool. The average wool imports for four yeara under the McKinley law were 226,106,920 pounds. The first year of the Wilson law the imports amounted to 483,823,010 pounds oran increase in one year of 257,715,090 pounds over the average of the previous four years. In other worde, there was au increase over this average of four years of 114 per cent.