The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, OCTOBER 4,1909. AMERICA’S TAX ON WOOL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2623, 4 October 1909, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. MONDAY, OCTOBER 4,1909. AMERICA’S TAX ON WOOL.

Tlie tariff war that is at present being waged by all the great commercial nations excepting England often produces quite unexpected results. Thus the United States which is the most highly protective of all, has endeavored by artificial means to shut out the woollen goods of foreign countries. In order to foster home manufacture of these goods an apparently prohibitive tariff of 100 per cent is imposed on many classes of woollen, manufactures. One would have imagined that tho protective principle would have ended here, but it did not. The farmers claimed that they, too, needed protection, and if the American looms were- not to he the dumping ground of foreign fleeces a substantial impost must be placed upon the introduction of tho raw material. Uncle Sam rarely does things by halves and he therefore clapped on the substantial duty of 5-id per pound on most varieties of wool. If ever the protective principle had an opportunity to demonstrate its efficiency ,lsuch a. one was here provided. One would naturally have imagined that with the immensity of area andxgreat productiveness of the United States its sheep farmers could have held their own against the outside world on even terms, but with s}d per lb. duty added to freight charges it would have seemed impossible that a solitary fleece should find its way through New York Harbor. Yet the actual fact is that since tho heavy duty was put on America’s imports of wool have grown in volume year by year and her farmers are to-day farther than ever from the ideal aimed at by those who framed the tariff. They cannot supply the nation's requirements in woollen fleeces and apparently will never be able to. The position simply resolves itself into national 'unsuitability. The extremes of temperature —excessively cold in winter and inordinately hot in summer—found in tho greater part of the United States appear to be very unfavorable to sheepraising, and neither the flesh of the animal nor its fleece are in any way comparable to the quality obtainable by Australian and New Zealand pastoralists. The main result of tho tariff law is that the working classes have to be satisfied with wearing cotton goods—the raw material of which is obtainable' in the country—or raiment in which nine-tenths are cotton and onetenth wool. That section of the community which can afford it, however, insists upon having woollen apparel, and being unable to obtain in their own country the class of wool whicb will work up satisfactorily, the manufacturers send their representatives to Australasian wool sales. The factory kings naturally pass on the 5-Jd duty to the consumer, and in addition charge a liberal amount in recognition of the heavy protection accorded them as manufacturers. It, therefore, happens that by the time an American has purchased a suit of woollbn tweed ho has paid more than double what he would have l>een asked in a London, Sydney or Wellington emporium. Thus tho result of this highly protective tariff supplies but a poor argument for protectionists. It has utterly failed to develop the huge sheep-raising industry that was looked for by the framer s of the tariff. Then, in regard to manufacturing, it

lias certainly stimulated the local industry, but still there are large quantities of woollen manufactured goods constantly being sent to the States from England. And in this respect it is interesting to note from the letter of our Bradford correspondent that even with cotton goods in which the United State s has her own raw material from the fields of the Southern States, whilst England has to import hers, the cotton looms of Yorkshire and Lancashire are sending more manufactures to America than ever before. In this case the superior* workmanship of the Britisher is said to be the cause of th-> apparent defiance of tariff economics, but it certainly throws an interesting sidelight on an absorbing topic. Whether the high wages paid to American workmen are sufficient compensation for the fact that articles containing wool are fixed at a price that is so prohibitive that the hulk of the working classes have to make- shift with cotton socks, cotton singlets, cotton suits, etc., is a matter that it is hard to adjudicate upon, but there is not the slightest doubt that a referendum taken in the United State s to-morrow would most certainly result in an overwhelming vote being given for free wool. Unfortunately for the pastoralists of New Zealand the stimulus that that would thus be given to the wool trade seems a long way off, for the vested interests have proved quite strong enough to defeat the people in a most emphatic manner in the tariff that lias recently passed info law. The monied interests hold the key to the position, and they can be depended upon to fight vigorously for its retention. The tariff question is truly a most complicated problem. In the instance just quoted we find department of trade bolstered up by a huge tariff wait under the familiar excuse, in the first place, that an infant industry must be protected. The result most obvious seems to be that big manufacturing combines have been built up which are able to demand the perpetuation of a prohibitory tariff in their own especial interests. There is not the slightest doubt but that theoretically the freetraders have all the best of the argument and it is a thousand pities that the commercial war which at present animates the world seems likely to drive Britain into the ranks of nations which will perpetrate such economic mistakes as have been made by the United States in regard to the wool trade.