OCR Text |
Show j clamoring for lower duties? They, I too, are evidently satistied with the tariff, realizing that under Its operations they have not onjy not been robbed, as free traders predicted, but they have been able to purchase their supplies as cheaply and of as good quality as ever before. It amounts to this then, that the only persons who are exerting themselves in behalf of free wool and lower duties on woolen goods are the radical free traders, who, through the instrumentality instrumen-tality of the democratic party, propose to destroy the tariff root and branch by attacking it in detail. They pretend to be acting solely in the interest of the "oppressed" manufacturer and the "pillaged" "pil-laged" consumers, but, as we ha shown, these classes are quite satisfied and are opposed to any change. The real animus of the free trader is to restore re-store the old order of things under which importers anil dealers iu foreign goods, y fraudulent undervaluations anil other devices, swi ndled the government govern-ment and flooded the country with Cheap goods, to the great disadvantage of home manufacturers and domestic consumers. WHO WANT FBEB WOOL? Tlio advocates of tsiriff reduction, who have hit upon the expedient of ni tacking the McKinlcy act in spots, lielieve that the proposition for free wool will receive re-ceive tho most united support, and is, therefore, most likely to receive legislative legis-lative sanction. It is because of this sanguine expectation that Chairman Springer and the other democrats on the ways and means committee aro taking the greatest possible euro to have the free wool bill in the least objectionable ob-jectionable form, so that it will not provoke pro-voke unnecessary antagonism. It is understood, of course, that the placing of raw wool on the free list will be followed fol-lowed by tho removal of what are known as the compensatory duties on woolen goods. As a contemporary contempo-rary expresses it, there will be no protection pro-tection left to tho manufacturers, the duties being reduced to a purely revenue reve-nue basis. This raises the question: Who want free wool and a reduction of the duties on woolen goods? If has been assumed that the in uiufacturevs will be greatly benefited and that I liey will he delighted at the prospect. But there is no truth in this. The National Wool Manufacturers' Manufac-turers' association has forwarded a pe- : tit ion to congress deprecating a renewal renew-al of tarif agitation, asserting that the ' proposed changes in Ihe woolen sehod- ! ules are uol based on any real advant- I age which would result to the domestic j manufacturer or the domestic consumer, con-sumer, and that as manufacturers I hey I are ".satisfied with the existing tariff j law " They think they are entitled to a period, of rest and beg "to be left alone, that they may pursue their industry in-dustry in peace and with a reasonable degree of confidence." It is clear thai the manufacturers do 1 not wunt any tariff tinkering, and where is there the least evidence that the consumers of woolen goods are j |