OCR Text |
Show H WON'T BE CHEAPER CLOTHE8 BBj 'rlie Tribune has often urged that the ndmls- BBJ f'd of loielgn wool Into tho United States, free of BBJ duty, hs proposed In tho Democratic tariff' bill, BBb would lint In fact reduce tho price of clothing or of BBj woolen &oods of any kind to tho ultlmato buyer In Bfl v. t1's country. Wo havo urged that sufllclent reason BB would always be put forth to tho effect that the BB trado was obliged to charg'o substantially tho old BB prices In order to inako good on Its expenses. This BB view Ib now fully conflrmod by a statement from BB Mr. William Goldman, President of the National BB Association of Clothiers, and Chairman of Its Tariff BB Commit too. Mr. Goldman sets forth In full tho BB conditions ns they oxlBt now, contrasts them with BB the conditions which existed In 1894, when the for- BB raer Wilson bill was enacted, nnd concludes that BB "It Is not reasonable to expect that tho reduction BB In the cost of cloths during tho first year after tho BH phssage of ttlio bill will bo greater than the fluctu-BH fluctu-BH ', atlons that wo frequently witness In our own mar- BB kct, uninfluenced by tariff legislation." And he BB i concludes, summing up his statement, by saying: BB "Owing to tho free wool basis, thero will bo a rc- BB iductlon In tho cost of cloth In tho medium range BB from ten cents to twenty-five cents a ynru, and tho BBj .-clothing manufacturers can make a moderate shv- BB ing on linings as well. This saving of , fifty cents BB to ono dollar per suit In tho cloth value would bo BB largely offset by tho Increased cost of lnbor In ma- BB king clothing, and It Is reasonably certain there- BB fore, that tho difference) In tho cost of clothing Bfl: during tho first your following tlio adoption of tho Bfl! ( new bill will not be appreciable" Ho expects that flH thero will be a stiffening In the prices of foreign flH wools, this evidently on tho assumption that tho flH American production of wool will bo seriously crip-BB crip-BB flH Mr. Goldman makes It very clear that during HHj the first J'ear after ttho enforcement of tho prc- flfl posed freo wool, thero would bo no npprcclablo re- HH (luctlon In tho cost of clothing. Doubtless tho samo HH reasoning would apply to the production of all kind HH of woolen goods. And hs thero Is no likelihood of ' H' any reduction during tho first year, whdt reason is HH thero to expect a reduction tho second year, tho HH third year, or any other year? It wo aro not to HH havo any Immediate benefit from freo wool In tho HH prlco of clothing nnd of woolen goods nfter freo HH wool goes Into effect, why should wo expect such HH reduction at any time? And If we are not to have HH such reduction the first year, nnd probably not In BB any other year, what becomes of tho argument that HB i putting wool on tho freo list will reduce tho cost BB ilVf clothing nnd of woolen goods generally? HH The truth Is that tho wholo Democratic nssump- HH tlon is mero theory, nnd as soon ns practical men, BB ltko Mr. Goldman, get hold of tho proposition, they BB nt once show Its practical absurdity nnd that tho BB theory does not In fact apply to tho prnctlcnl nf-B nf-B . fairs -of Industry and trade Salt Lako Tribune. BBV U |