IV. That wool and woolen manufactures imported under its provisions shall not remain in bonded warehouses more than ten days.15

Each pound of the imports of shoddy, woolen rags, wastes, noils, etc., is estimated as equal to 3 pounds of unwashed wool."

Thus the imports of these adulterants in the fiscal year 1896 were equal to and supplanted the use of 56,013,327 pounds of American wool-more than the wool product for 1896 of four such States as Ohio.

And this is one of the "howls," that the free wool, free rags, and shoddy Wilson tariff bill injures the Ohio woolgrowers.

As to the dangerous and diseased condition of foreign imported rags, see Senate Document No. 17, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 159.

15 As to this it may be said:

I. This is necessary to aid in preventing large imports in advance of a better tariff. Whatever propriety there may be in permitting merchandise to remain in customs warehouses for a considerable period, under ordinary conditions there can be no justice or policy in permitting this to enable importers—

(1) To speculate on wool, and

(2) Pile up large quantities to the injury of American woolgrowers.

II. It is gratifying to know that the eminent wool merchant, Theodore Justice, of Philadelphia, in a letter, November 25, 1896, to William Lawrence, says:

"I have no objections to your SECOND, THIRD, and FOURTH amendments, except that it opens the bill to delay.

*

*

To this it may be said: The prompt acquiescence in the four JUST amendments will, in all probability, AVOID DELAY IN PASSING THE bill.

III. EASTERN WOOL DEALERS.

A few-a very few-of the Eastern wool dealers are giving their influence in aid of the passage of the Dingley bill without amendment.

1. They very naturally, and perhaps properly, seek the favor of wool manufacturers-even free-wool manufacturers.

2. If they have much wool on hand, an advance of 2 cents per pound by the aid of the Dingley bill would be useful to them.

3. But if this shall be fastened on woolgrowers until in the next century, as proposed, this insignificant and inadequate tariff would bring ruin. The woolgrowers would "gain a great loss."

4. These wool dealers may very honestly be mistaken, and with the influences surrounding them may honestly misjudge.

5. Woolgrowers know what they need better than the Eastern wool dealers. The Farmers' National Congress can better judge than the dealers.

6. If "PATCHES are to be put on " the abortive Wilson tariff, they should at least cover over some of the gaping holes that disfigure its ragged deformity and expose its ghastly skeleton. This idea is well illustrated in the American Economist of November 27, 1896.

X. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE AMENDMENTS-AS TO VETO.

The justice and necessity of the amendments have been demonstrated.

It is urged that if the Dingley bill be amended it will meet with a Presidential veto. As to this it may be said:

1. The President will be more likely to approve or permit the bill to become a law if it be made more nearly just by amendments than in its present shape. It proposes to give tariff protection to "iron ore and coal." The President in his letter of July 2, 1894, to Mr. Wilson, referring to the Democratic pledge for free raw materials, said: "It may well excite our wonder that Democrats are willing to depart from this, the most Democratic of all tariff principles, and that the inconsistent absurdity of such a proposed departure should be emphasized by the suggestion that the wool of the farmers be put on the free list and the protection of tariff taxation be placed around iron ore and coal of corporations and capitalists. How can we face the people after indulging in such outrageous discriminations and violations of principles?"

2. But if President Cleveland shall veto the bill, as amended, THEN Congress will know his objections and can pass a similar bill to conform to his views, if thereby a temporary revenue measure can be secured. The Dingley bill was passed in one day in the House.

The only hope of securing a temporary revenue measure is to make it equally just to all interests-the West as well as the East, the South as well as the North. 3. Those who resist this will alone be responsible for its defeat.

XI. THE WILSON TARIFF OF AUGUST 27, 1894, HAS BEEN RUINOUS TO WOOL MANUFACTURING.

American wool manufacturers furnish the only available market for our wools

Woolgrowers are equally with them interested in securing “the most ample protection" for the manufacturing industry.

The secretary of the National Association Wool Manufacturers says:

"We have in this country enough woolen machinery to manufacture all the woolen goods our people can consume. But we have no use for it under the present tariff." (See Bulletin of the Association, Sept., 1896.)

The Boston Textile Manufacturers' Review and Industrial Record of December 7, 1895, gives figures from the 1894 Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, as follows:

"Broadly speaking, 15 per cent less business was done in 1893 than in 1892. But bad as was manufacturing in 1893 it was worse in 1894, as noted in the accompanying statistics. For example, the amount of business done by the cotton mills was 8

XII. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT CHANGE THE RATE OF DUTY.

It is to be especially noticed that these amendments DO NOT ASK FOR AN INCREASE OF THE RATES OF DUTY, and hence give no reason for a veto by President Cleveland.16 They only ask to make the bill [in practical operation] give the real rate which it nominally proposes to do [so that it shall not legislate a falsehood or a false pretense]. [Not one valid reason can be given in opposition to the amendments. If they shall not be made, the just claims and interest of woolgrowers will be

per cent less, fewer operatives were employed, and the average yearly earnings were less.

Somewhat explanatory of the accompanying table, we will say that the amount of capital invested includes not only all money paid in as capital, as ordinarily understood, but all such items as notes receivable, stock on hand, etc., that are devoted to production. The items employed in making up the industry product are worthy of study, and may be better understood from the following example relating to cotton goods:

We must leave the statistical presentation to the intelligence of our_readers. There is much in it. The proportion or percentage of business done may be better understood if we should state that in the case of carpets 60.27 means that the carpet mills ran within 30.73 per cent of their full capacity. In 1892 they ran within 18 per cent of their full capacity."

The effect of the act of 1894 on wool manufacturing is shown in the Bulletin for September, 1896.

See footnote 25, Chapter II, of this document. The amendments proposed leave the RATE OF DUTY in the Dingley bill unchanged at 60 per cent of 11 cents on unwashed merino. It has been shown in footnote 11 ante that

"This rate in competition with skirted unwashed Australian merino will only in practice be equal to 3.6 cents on Ohio and similar WASHED merino, and less than this on unwashed-about 2.6 cents or less-and from 2 to 2.5 cents on much of Texas and far-west states wools."

The McKinley Act of October 1, 1890, was intended to give a protective benefit of 11 cents per pound on the greasy [unwashed] merino wools of the United States. This is readily proven:

I. The acts of 1867, of 1883, and of 1890, are all substantially in the same form as to merino wools-clothing or class 1 wools--except as to the amount of the duty. The intention, then, is to be gathered from the act of 1867.

1. Its intention was to give a protective benefit of the full amount of the duty specified on unwashed merino, double on washed, treble on scoured.

At that time American woolgrowing was chiefly east of the Missouri River. (Senate Mis. Doc. No. 124, second session Fifty-third Congress, p. 107.) The general shrinkage of all our merino wools was an average of 663 per cent in scouring. (See Senate Doc. No. 17, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, December, 1895, p. 50, and pp. 9, 54.)

The light shrinkage of Australian merino was then almost unknown in our markets. The total wool product in Australia in 1870 was only 179,459,780 pounds, chiefly used in European factories. (Senate Doc. No. 124, p. 53.) The process of "skirting" wool for export was then unknown.

It was in view of these conditions that the act of 1867 was passed. Its purpose was carried into the acts of 1883 and 1890, but the unfortunate "skirting clause" in the act of 1890 largely defeated that purpose, as is fully shown in footnote 11 ante.

2. As to the merino wools of the world generally, and especially the unskirted South American merino, shrinking 66 per cent in scouring, the nominal duty of 11 cents per pound in the act of 1890 on unwashed merino was the real protective duty in practical operation. This is proved by evidence of the American consul at Buenos

sacrificed for the unfair benefit of wool manufacturers. If those wool dealers who are aiding the scheme to pass the Dingley bill Ayres, etc., found in Senate Doc. No. 17, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, December, 1895, pp. 54-59.

3. The skirted Australian merino has advantages over the merino wools of the world generally, and especially those of the United States, in this, that in scouring, the former will shrink only about 50 per cent and even less. This is proved:

(1) By the testimony of the eminent wool importers, Mauger & Avery. (Senate Doc. No. 17, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 48.)

(2) This is corroborated by the testimony of the secretary of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers. (Same document, pp. 49-51.)

(3) The Boston American Wool and Cotton Reporter of November 14, 1895, in quoting the market price of foreign wool, says:

"Fine Australian wool of good staple is still in demand at good prices. Fine Port Phillip, shrinking 46 to 48 per cent, is offered at a clean cost of 44 cents, and in the grease at 24 cents. This wool is of good, sound staple."

This is unwashed merino, of the best grade of Australasian wool.
Washed Ohio merino will shrink in scouring an average of 55 per cent.

(4) The August, 1896, wool circular of Justice, Bateman & Co., contains the following:

It will be seen that Port Phillip [Australian] greasy [unwashed] is quoted 11d., and sconred 22d. This shows that the shrinkage in scouring is only 50 per cent.

But Ohio WASHED wool is estimated to shrink 55 per cent in scouring (Senate Doc. No. 17, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, pp. 48-55), and our Western greasy [unwashed] wools will shrink from 663 to 75 per cent.

(5) The proposition stated is proved by the observation of Hon. John T. Rich, governor of Michigan. (Senate Mis. Doc. No. 35, Fifty-third Congress, second session, p. 322.)

THE RESULT.

The result is that Australian unwashed skirted merino has an ADVANTAGE over Ohio WASHED of all of 5 cents per pound over washed Ohio merino, and over unwashed nearly double that, which operates by so much to reduce the protective benefit of the tariff, and hence in justice (1) to American woolgrowers, and (2) to the wool producers of other countries, and (3) especially our sister Republics in South America the Australian unwashed unskirted merino should be dutiable as washed wool.

It was because of its light shrinkage that in the fiscal year 1896 the imports of wools from Australasia were 71,627,131 pounds, and from Argentina only 15,523,911.

THE REASONS.

Australasian unwashed skirted merino will command in American markets all of 5 cents per pound more than Ohio washed, and 6 cents more than Texas and Western wools, because

1. Its lighter shrinkage than other merino;

2. In order to evade the effect of the tariff, the choicest, cleanest, lightest fleeces are selected for export, and it is with such wools that American woolgrowers must compete. We must sell ALL our wools in the United States. Australasia can select and sell only a part. (Senate Mis. Doc. No. 135, Fifty-third Congress, second session, p. 322.) See Governor Rich's speech.

3. The "skirting" of wool saves the cost of sorting.

The wool circular of Justice, Bateman & Co., of December 3, 1895, says: "Fully 10 per cent of the wages in an average woolen mill was heretofore paid

will aid in its amendment as asked, they will deserve and receive the gratitude of woolgrowers.]

The reasons more at large showing the injustice of the Dingley bill are presented in papers hereto annexed.

Respectfully submitted.

WILLIAM LAWRENCE (Chairman), Bellefontaine, Ohio,

E. W. RANDALL, Morris, Minn.,

LAFAYETTE FUNK, Shirley, Ill.,

Committee on Memorial.

XIII. RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY THE FARMERS'
NATIONAL CONGRESS.

We also submit for your consideration such resolutions as we have been able to secure up to this date, and which were adopted by the congress:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

Whereas the vast proportions to which our internal and external commerce has attained-its unparalleled increase to the present, and the almost limitless possibilities of its future, its intimate connection and influence in the commercial progress and development of this nation, alike demand from the American people their united support and earnest consideration, therefore be it

Resolved, That the Farmers' National Congress of the United States, in convention assembled, representing every section of our great nation, believing that the best interests of our nation would be subserved, unitedly declare in favor of the creation of a department of commerce, such department to be entitled and to receive the same representation as now accorded to the National Departments of Government.

for the sorting of wool. By the use of skirted Australian, this item of expense is saved to the manufacturers." (Senate Doc. No. 17, Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, p. 47.)

The extensive wool manufacturers, Collings, Taylor & Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, in a letter, December 1, 1896, to William Lawrence, say:

*

*

"The cost of sorting and scouring is not exactly the same in all mills, but we figure it costs us all of 1 cent per greasy pound to assort and scour. And take the wool just as it comes, fine and medium, washed and unwashed, either Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, or Pennsylvania, and take the Western heavy, sandy wools, and they will cost fully as much or a shade more. The proportions for sorting are fiveeighths cent, for scouring five-eighths cent. This is actual cost-no profit figure." 4. Justice, Bateman & Co., in a letter to William Lawrence, December 2, 1896, say: "The charge for sorting and scouring Ohio merino wool is 1 cent per pound in the grease, adding 2 cents per scoured pound cost on wool shrinking 50 per cent, and more than this on Territory wools, which shrink more."

HOW THE DINGLEY BILL WOULD OPERATE.

In the wool circular of Justice, Bateman & Co. of August, 1896, Ohio fine unwashed merino is quoted (Philadelphia and Boston prices) at 12 cents per pound. It will cost an average of 3 cents per pound for western wools generally to reach the eastern market, including (1) freight, (2) wool buyers' profits, and (3) Eastern wool dealers' commissions, leaving 9 cents farm value. Allowing the Dingley bill to add to this 2.6 cents, the farm value of Ohio merino would be 11.6 cents per pound, but even less for Texas and Territory wools, with greater freights. (See Senate Doc. No. 17, Fiftyfourth Congress, first session, pp. 51-52, 70.)

Wool can not be produced at such rates. This means ruin.

The ruin of the ad valorem duties has already been pointed out.

THE conclusions are:

1. The skirting clause should be eliminated from the Dingley bill.

2. A new general law at an extra session of Congress should classify Australian unwashed merino as washed.

3. It should omit the "skirting clause."