6. DEFECTS IN ACT OF 1890. What the wool trade wants to-day is an improved McKinley bill, not 60 per cent. of the original act of 1890, which assisted in the defeat of the Republican party in Ohio on account of the decline of wool caused by the frauds worked into schedule K. This was never intended by the honored statesman from Ohio, William McKinley. It would be well for our legislators at Washington to be cautious in the handling of this emergency measure, for one false move might array against them in solid phalanx 1,000,000 producers of wool and their sympathizers in their just cause, for it is a well-known fact that in the propogation of a tariff on wool they will strain every nerve to obtain justice. WILLIAM H. B. THORNTON. XV.-WILLIAM H. B. THORNTON AGAIN ON THE Dingley BILL. [By William H. B. Thornton, an eminent wool dealer of Chicago, Ill.] CHICAGO, ILL., November 28, 1896. To the editor Inter-Ocean: Since the election of Hon. William McKinley as Chief Executive of our nation the press of England, Germany, France, and, in fact the whole continent is arrayed against what they term an unnecessary increase of duties in a new tariff system. 1. EUROPE OPPOSED TO PROTECTIVE DUTIES. Why should they not be? We have kept their mills running and their labor employed during the present Democratic Administration at the expense of bankrupt industries-hundreds of thousands of idle workingmen, poverty, and misery scattered through our land. Now, they know that this state of affairs, brought about by their Democratic allies, is going to be changed most radically. 2. DUTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-AN EXTRA SESSION OF CONGRESS. The Republican party will soon hold the reins of government, and they are fully aware that it means protection to American industries at any cost, and not a tariff for revenue only. So, seeing in the near future their industries languishing and their workingmen not so fully employed, they advocate in advance retaliatory measures if we attempt an increase in our tariff system as laid down by the McKinley Act of 1890. Some Republican papers and a few lukewarm Republicans and free traders are already in line trying to shape a conservative course for the new Administration to pursue. Some advocate the position that we will have ample revenue to defray the current expenses of our Government. On the other hand, there are those who believe the Dingley bill will afford sufficient revenue to satisfy the business world, in which case they claim there will be no occasion to call an extra session of Congress when our elected President takes his seat on March 4. 3. THE WOOLGROWERS SAVED THE ELECTION OF M'KINLEY. While Republicans expected a dissatisfied foreign press and the croakings of a defeated Democrat and Populistic party, they did not for a moment anticipate prominent Republican journals advocating at this time low tariff duties. It is well for every one to understand-whether members of the Senate or House of Representatives-that if it had not been that the voters of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Oregon, and North and South Dakota believed that a proper protective tariff law would be passed at the very earliest possible moment the States in question would not have been kept in the Republican column. It was the anticipation of protection that saved these States, and not the currency question. The voters for McKinley were voters for protection, knowing full well that the Republican Party was always sound on the money question. 4. HOW THE SOLID DEMOCRATIC SOUTH WAS BROKEN. The breaking up of the once-solid Democratic South can only be attributed to the expectation of a protective tariff law. For no other reason would the voters of Tennessee, North Carolina, Texas, and other Southern States have reduced their previous large Democratic majorities by flocking to the McKinley standard in such large numbers if it had not been to find refuge under the mantle of protection. the The 1,000,000 plurality of the popular vote given McKinley in the campaign just passed has buried free traders in the gulf of a century's execration. Whether they belong to the gold or silver Democracy, retribution of public opinion is just as sweeping. We have had enough of Democracy for some years to come, no matter how its leaders may speak of its past, or under what name or in what shape it may present itself. 5. FREE TRADE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED THE FARMERS DID THE WORK. We have experienced the fruits of their promises to our sorrow, at the sacrifice of thousands of millions of money lost to the consuming power. The country, disgusted and tired of its misrule, has simply retired it from power. The farming districts, knowing their losses under the statute called the Gorman-Wilson bill, have rendered their silent verdict in the agricultural States. The textile industries, the lumber, sugar, coal, iron, lead, and other interests where labor is largely employed, have given their mandate against free-trade heresies such as tariff for revenue only. 6. THE DINGLEY BILL NOT SUFFICIENT-NOT JUST TO WOOL GROWERS. To pass the Dingley bill at the Fifty-fourth Congress in the shape it left the House would not only be an injustice, but an insult to the vote of the large agricultural States mentioned, as well as other interests. This Dingley bill in its present shape is a sectional measure-one of the worst kind -- and would not satisfy the Western States. The woolproducing sections would be up in arms for the reason that it is an unjust bill. It gives protection to the large eastern manufacturers of 60 per cent of the act of 1890, at the same time claiming to give to the woolgrowers also 60 per cent, when, in fact, it only gives them 30 per cent, for the wool clause in the act of 1890, unintentionally by the framers, is so riddled with loopholes by which manufacturers defeated, and could continue to defeat, the intentions of the statute that it would virtually deprive the woolgrower of half of the so-called protection the bill would show on its face, which the growers of wool throughout the country would not submit to. They would do in the fall election of 1898 what they did in the fall election of 1894. The Republican party would again receive a Waterloo. Could the country expect anything else when agricultural States would again be deprived of their rights? 7. PROMISES MUST BE FULFILLED-DEFECTS IN THE WOOL TARIFF. Promises by the great party of protection have been made, and they must be fulfilled. The country wants no patched-up tariff bill at this time. There is no measure that will satisfy the west except one that is honest and fair to their industries as well as those of the east. On account of the discrepancies in the wool schedule of the act of 1890, placed there by a few eastern manufacturers to defeat the intentions of the bill, substitutes of all kinds and wrongly classified wools were brought in through our custom-houses and took the place of American wools under false duties, thus robbing the grower out of his rights under the statute and the Government out of several million dollars of revenue yearly. Wools were sorted and brought in under the skirting clause, saving one half duty to the importer. Wools were scoured and brought in under the washed-fleece schedule, defrauding the Government out of 10 cents per pound duty. Then, again, hundreds of thousands of pounds of wool used for clothing and worsted purposes came in under the low ad valorem carpet duty, saving, in some instances, a treble duty to the importer. First-class washed wools were admitted under the second-class sehedule, saving also 10 cents a pound duty to the importer. Wastes, so called-which in fact were a choice manufactured product-came in under rascally low duties. The whole wool schedule was a perfect network of defects; consequently 60 per cent of this wool schedule, as the Dingley bill offers, would be as unjust as the free-wool bill now in force. This must not occur, as it would be a suicidal policy. The people of the West did not vote for this unfair revenue bill. They expect a proper, equitable tariff act, just as soon as the Republican party can control both Houses of Congress. 8. ERRORS IN THE WOOL SCHEDULE—WHY REPUBLICANS WERE DEFEATED IN 1894. The great errors that crept into the wool schedule of the act of 1890 caused the prices of wool to decline under this act, which so discouraged the growers throughout the wool-producing States that they assisted in the Republican defeat in 1894. It gave to Democracy a weapon which it used in that memorable landslide successfully. Its speakers harangued to the people the fallacy of protection, showing that wools declined under a high protective tariff act, which, on the face, seemed true. But in reality it was a falsehood. Wools were declining on account of defects in the wool tariff. The reason wools declined was because foreign importations were being admitted under half the intended duty. Why should they not decline? The weapon held by Democracy, however, misled the woolgrowers, for many who believed in protection sacrificed their principles by casting their votes against them in the wave of dissatisfaction in the fall election of 1894. DINGLEY BILL NOT SATISFACTORY. Who, then, could advocate the passage of such a bill as the Dingley act, which would fasten upon the American people 60 per cent of an unjust measure? The woolgrower wants no statute like this, that offers him 60 per cent of that fraudulent wool act. The country desires no sectional measure passed by this session or the Fifty-fifth Congress, for in such a case the party which attempts it will certainly be retired in 1898. How Hon. Nelson Dingley, author of the bill in question, which was passed by the House of Representatives December 26, 1895, and was to continue in force until August 1, 1898, could allow such a measure to go to the Senate in the shape it passed the House, is a surprise to many of his admirers. For as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the Fifty-fourth Congress he certainly must have been acquainted with irregularities in the wool schedule of the act of 1890. 9. THIRD-CLASS WOOLS ADMITTED. China wools, admitted under a 32 per cent ad valorem carpet duty, used in competition with American clothing wools, defeated the intentions of the first class, which required a duty of 11 cents per pound, when, in fact, these wools were admitted for about 2 to 2 cents per pound. Smyrnas, Bagdads, and similar wools, used largely in worsted serges and for clothing purposes, were also admitted under this low ad valorem duty, defeating the intention of the first and second class duties required for such stock, which are 11 and 12 cents per pound. Donskoi wools, etc., a scoured product, came in under a low washed ad valorem duty, used in many instances in worsteds and cheviots, also defeating the first and second class requirements. I might point out many similar swindles, such as East India wool, skirted Australian, etc., but think this ample to demonstrate that frauds of the worst kind were afforded by the "loopholes" in the wool schedule. 10. WOOL DEALERS ON THE DINGLEY BILL. Some wool dealers and manufacturers will no doubt advocate the passage of the Dingley bill in its present shape. The latter it will undoubtedly benefit, while to the former it will only give a temporary relief that is, it will assist them to unload the 300,000,000 pounds or more of wool that will probably be on hand on January 1, 1897. But where will the producer come in? He will simply be deceived again, as usual, because the relief gained by the wool interest will only be temporary. He will be the sufferer, as before, under the fraudulent wool schedule in the coming clip of 1897 by the many classifications upheld by the Dingley act. Already it is reported that importers are scouring Europe for brokentops, lap waste, thread waste, English-grown fleeces, and Australian wools. It is also reported that at Mazamet, France, 4,000,000 pounds of scoured staple wool has been purchased recently for this country, which will take the place of 12,000,000 pounds of American unwashed wool. HOW SKIRTING ADDS TO THE VALUE OF IMPORTED WOOL. Manufacturers, as a rule, pay from 5 to 7 cents per pound more for skirted foreign wools (which is really a sorted stock) than they will for the American product of the same quality, and still it was a well-known fact that these wools came in under the first class of the act of 1890, and paid the same duty as wool in ordinary unwashed condition. What a scheme of jugglery to rob the grower! Admitted such improved stock under the same act, whether skirted or not! 11. DINGLEY BILL DECEPTIVE. * * The Dingley bill claims to give 60 per cent protection to the grower on such a bare-faced fraud as this. Where are the wool men who dare dispute these facts? Why do they falter *? Four years ago the whole wool trade were solidified for protection; for four years they have suffered under a sectional injustice, and are now grasping at a straw. They are willing to swallow this defective measure, although it promises only revenue. They forget they have also suffered by wrong classification and fraud in our tariff systems. Does the wool dealers' interest want to continue the irregularities and inconsistencies in the late tariff bill when they are acquainted with the facts? Do they want to aid in the passage of another iniquitous tariff act, that in the end would destroy our sheep husbandry, because by a false boom of prices they might realize a few thousand dollars on 300,000,000 pounds of wool now held by dealers and speculators? Do they think the woolgrower is to be misled again in the make-up of a tariff system? It doesn't seem possible. One mistake by the great deliberating body of the Senate of the United States might be the deathblow to proper protection for a term of years. Republican members of the Fifty-fourth Congress must not be misled by Democrats or by petitions from merchants or manufacturers, that at present have forgotten they are Republicans in their chase after Democratic rainbows. 12. WANT TO DITCH THE REPUBLICANS. * * The idea of a few Democratic Senators willing to aid in the passage of the Dingley bill! Is not this sufficient to kill it? Why do they want this measure to pass now, when they tried so hard to defeat it in the last session of Congress? * * It is the nearest to a revenue bill they can secure, and they would like to see it made a law, fully acquainted with the fact that a new election will take place before any other tariff act could come into force. And, perhaps, they imagine that the passage of such an emergency bill might end any further tariff legislation during the McKinley administration. As the Populist and free-silver advocates captured the Democratic party at Chicago, so it is plainly visible the gold democracy at Washington is trying to capture the great party of protection by assisting in |