Schedule K.-WOOL, AND MANUFACTURES OF WOOL. WOOL. STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN G. CLARK, OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PA., REPRESENTING THE WOOLGROWERS' ASSOCIATION. WEDNESDAY, January 6, 1897. Mr. CLARK said: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee on Ways and Means, we are very thankful for the privilege of coming before you this morning. I might say at the outset that I am one of the delegates from Washington County, Pa., representatives of the County Woolgrowers' Association. Mr. John M. Berry and Mr. John MacDowell are my associates, and we are practical woolgrowers. We come from a woolgrowing center. We have been in the business from our youth, having served an apprenticeship in taking care of our fathers' flocks, and having the care of our own flocks for perhaps forty years or more, and we think we understand the ins and outs of the business pretty well; and I might say further that what we have to say is not only the feeling of our own county, but of western Pennsylvania, and I might include the States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia, the adjoining States, and perhaps the woolgrowing States of the Union, for that matter, as we think the feeling is about one and the same. The necessity for protective duties on wool is no longer questioned. The experiment of free wool has convinced every one who has given the subject any attention that wool can not be grown in this country in competition with foreign wools. It has brought destruction to a large proportion of our flocks. It has afforded no reasonable returns for time and labor, and in many cases has brought bankruptcy and distress. The enactment of free wool was a great crime against the woolgrowing part of the community, and has been a great injury to all. It directly reversed the policy under which we had long prospered, and turned the industry into the hands of foreign producers. Under former tariff rates a very large proportion of our farm lands were devoted to raising sheep and wool. But as one and another abandons the business they engage in growing grain for market, or 1341 producing milk or butter, or anything that will afford a living. The change has only destroyed the prospects of those already engaged in these pursuits. The country is now filled with farm produce of every kind, at prices below the cost of production. We have no profitable use to which we can apply our farm lands, and they have depreciated nearly one-half in value. Give us an opportunity to grow wool again and a large proportion of our lands will be devoted to pasturage, and hay and grain will be consumed on the farms. Our wool market has never been overstocked. We have never grown but about one-half of the wool necessary to clothe ourselves. Adequate protection to the woolgrower is the duty of the incoming Administration. The large majority at our late election was a decision in favor of it, and the question now before this committee is, "What shall the rate of duty be?" We do not ask an extreme measure. We want something that will commend itself when enforced; something that will not only benefit woolgrowers, but will benefit all. We want a rate that will perpetuate the business by giving a living profit to those engaged in it. Anything short of this would fail in its purpose. There is no class of men so well qualified to decide the question as those engaged in the business and have given it their time and attention. The National Woolgrowers' Association, composed of practical men from all over the States, prepared a bill about one year ago which, in their judgment, would be just to all, and would give fair compensation to woolgrowers. At a recent meeting of this association the same bill was indorsed, and we think is generally favored by those interested in woolgrowing. It is presented to this committee, confidently believing it will fully meet with your approval. It is not an extreme measure, and it is believed to be the very lowest rate that will give encouragement to the industry. It will not be burdensome to any. The amount of wool consumed by each family is so small that a few cents duty per pound can not make dear clothing. We can refer you to the times when we had the highest wool tariff we ever had as the times when the laboring man could secure as much or more woolen cloth, free from shoddy, for each day's labor than in any other period of our history. This was from 1867 to 1883. The duty on wool under the tariff of 1867 was much higher than we are asking now. Under it the industry prospered as it never did before or since. The change to a lower rate in 1883 gave discouragement and reduced our flocks, and yet the tariff of 1883 was but a trifle below what we are asking now. We refer to this as evidence that we are not asking for an extreme measure. Grant us this bill and we believe this great industry in which all are so much interested will live. The importance of it is above all estimate. The clothing of our people is almost as important as supplying them with food. Why should we send millions of dollars annually abroad for wool, to the benefit of foreign countries, when we have soil and climate and everything favorable, and men willing to work at the lowest living rates in producing it at home? With proper protection we will soon grow all the wool necessary for our own use. We can grow it in every grade and style, from the coarsest to the finest. American-grown wools are conceded to be the strongest and most elastic, and just suited for good, durable clothing. To produce it at home will give employment to several millions of our citizens that otherwise must crowd other occupations. We look with intense interest to this Committee on Ways and Means, believing whatever you recommend will be enacted into law by Congress. Many of us are holding our flocks at a present loss awaiting your favorable action. If you turn this great industry over to foreign producers, it will carry with it a further loss of hundreds of millions of dollars. We believe it would be to the interest of all, and would promote general prosperity, if a tariff law were enacted that would gradually give to the woolgrower, and also to the wool manufacturer, the full benefit of our home markets. There is one expression here that I would qualify just a little: "The duty on wool under the tariff of 1867 was much higher than we are asking now. Under it the industry prospered as it never did before or since. The change to a lower rate in 1883 gave discouragement and reduced our flocks." I suppose I ought to qualify that by saying that the flocks in the Middle States, and perhaps in New England, were decreased, while at the same time the increase rather was west of the Mississippi River. The statistics will show, I believe, that our flock increased somewhat during the tariff of 1883, and the increase, we think we are safe in saying, was west of the Mississippi River, and not east. Mr. GROSVENOR. Everything was increased west of the Mississippi River? Mr. CLARK. I think so. Mr. GROSVENOR. There was a swift growth there? Mr. WHEELER. I want to ask a question. I see under class 3 in 1893, under the act, 125,000,000 pounds of wool were imported at 32 per cent. Now, of that same class under the act of 1894, the Wilson bill, only 96,000,000 were imported. We have less importations under the free list than we had under the dutiable list of 32 per cent, and I do not understand it. Mr. CLARK. Well, I have not looked into the matter, but I would answer that in this way, that the general depression of business was such that shippers and importers did not see proper to bring it in. The CHAIRMAN. You refer to merino wool of class 3, and those are carpet wools, and are very nearly all imported. Classes 1 and 2 are clothing wools. Mr. CLARK. My understanding of that is that the change from tariff rates to free wool was directly reversing the order of things and disorganized the business of the country generally. And men did not want to import unless they thought there was going to be business carried on in the United States and the people buy; but the people not being in a condition to buy, they did not want to import, and consequently there were less importations. Mr. GROSVENOR. I would like to ask you to make a little more definite, and put it into a little more certainty, this general statement you made, that if you can have this tariff you suggest we can grow all the wool we need in the United States. That was your statement. Mr. CLARK. Yes, something equivalent to that; but I do not know I stated this tariff, but I said if we had a proper tariff. Mr. GROSVENOR. Perhaps so. But it is immaterial for the purpose I want to ask you. What is the amount of the entire product now, say for 1896, of wool in the United States, if you know? Mr. CLARK. Well, I am not much of a statistician. Mr. LAWRENCE. 270,000,000 pounds. Mr. GROSVENOR. Assuming now that it is 270,000,000 pounds, how much of it do we consume? What Mr. LAWRENCE. We consume in all 630,000,000 pounds. Mr. GROSVENOR. That would leave 350,000,000 we imported. length of time, in your judgment, would be a satisfactory time required in order to put the country in a condition to produce that amount of wool? Mr. CLARK. There are others here who can answer that question better than I can. Mr. LAWRENCE. Four years. Mr. CLARK. I am a farmer, and give my attention to the farm, chiefly, rather than to statistics. Mr. GROSVENOR. Assuming that it will take four years, what proposition do you intend to offer between now and four years hence in regard to the supply of wool? Mr. CLARK. I do not know that I understand your question. Mr. GROSVENOR. Assuming that we put a tariff now that would be practically or largely prohibitory, and we required 350,000,000 pounds of imported wool in 1897, and that it would take four years to put the country in the matter of flocks in a condition to produce the wool necessary for the country's use, what do you propose for the time between now and then? Mr. CLARK. Well, I could not make any definite answer in regard to time, but my idea about it would be that in all probability foreign wool would be imported here extensively until we had the tariff regulation, that the country would be so filled with goods, cloth, etc., we could not count on much of anything in a year perhaps. Mr. GROSVENOR. Very well; that would be one year, and by that time would your flocks begin to increase? Mr. CLARK. It would just depend upon the faith the growers would have in the stability of the tariff. Mr. GROSVENOR. Well, the higher the tariff-assuming that it would become what would be called a high tariff-the less certainty of stability, would there not? Mr. CLARK. Well, I do not know as to that; the highest tariff we ever had continued much the longest. I believe the tariff of 1867 was as high as the tariff of 1842, but I think the history will back me up in it; the tariff of 1842 was quite a high wool tariff and gave great impetus to the business for two or three years. Mr. DOLLIVER. The tariff of 1842 appears to have been 7 cents? Mr. CLARK. Well, I am not at all posted on what it was. I was a young man at the time, having charge of my father's flocks, and it was considered a good thing, I know; and the tariff of 1847 brought a loss and depression somewhat similar to free wool, and sheep were almost given away then for a while, and business of the country generally stopped. In our manufacturing city of Pittsburg the mills were all in full blast and many new ones were built after the tariff of 1842, as it gave good protection to iron and steel. Mr. DOLLIVER. The tariff of 1842 appears to have been 3 cents per pound and 30 per cent ad valorem? Mr. CLARK. Yes. Mr. WHEELER. How do you account for the fact that in the tariff of 1816 and 1857 New England was substantially for free wool? The Maine Representatives all voted for it, I believe, except one? Mr. CLARK. Well, I suppose that was under the influence of the |