WOOL TARIFF IN U.S.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 212, 7 September 1922, Page 5

WOOL TARIFF IN U.S.

■ FIGHTING FOREIGN GRADES. (From Cur Own Cortespondent.) SAN FRANCISCO, August 4. The long expected battle over the wool! schedule of the pending tariff bill pro-; posed by Senators Fordney and McCumber, came with dramatic suddenness in. the Senate at Washington, with Senator Walsh, Democrat, of Massachusetts, de-; livering a smashing attack on the pro-i posed duty of 33 cents a pound on wool j of clean content as one that would im-j pose additional taxation on the consumer aggregating nearly 200,000,000 dollars. With Senators McCumber (North Dakota), Smoot (Utah), Gooding (Idaho), and Burstim (New Mexico) defending the woo] schedule as essential to protect the woolgrowers of Western America from the ''ruinously cheap" pro-; duct of the Australian and South American sheepmen. Senator Walsh denounced the 33-ccnt rate as the "highest ever levied by any tariff law." | Senator Walsh claimed the rate was 50 per cent higher than the average one imposed by the historic Schedule X of the Paync-Aldrich bill. Senator Smoot contended the rate was not based on "mere guesswork," hut on actual conditions which confronted Western woolsrrowers, supported by the finding of the Federal Tariff Commission. He challenged the assertion of Senator Jones, Democrat, of .New Mexico, that the woolmen would derive higher rales from the schedule than appeared on the' surface. "The manufacturer does not; get one penny more from the schedule r than is specified," said Senator Smoot, "and he cannot take anything out of the woolgrower, as he has done in the past." In a further statement, Senator Walsh' enlarged on the fact that proposed wool rates will add at leant 2.50 dollars to the cost of every woollen s«tit of clothes, 3.50 dollars to the cost of an ordinary overcoat, and 5 dollars to the cost of a heavy ulster, and will, add corresponding burdens to the cost of all women's suits and dresses. "It will add," he said, "a total burden to American purchasers of raw wool of at least 195,000.000 dollars, to the purchasers of manufactured goods of wool, and the only benefit derived from the 33-ccnt duty on raw wool will be to put 30.0W.000 dollars into the pockets of American woolgrowers. j When the debate the raw! wool tariff rate of 33 cents a pound of, clean contents, eight cents more than proposed hy the House, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 38 to 10. | The committee's amendment to the hill, as finnlly approved, was in the same form as the provision was written into , the bill by the House, except that the House proviso for a limitation of 35 , per cent ad valorem was stricken out. The finance committee's majority withdrew at the last minute its original amendment providing for graduated bracket rates dependent upon the per- , centage of shrinkage of the wool when cleaned. This bracket arrangement was recommended by the Republican agricuT- . tural tariff bloc, and this was the second . time it had been before the Senate. Acting finally on the substitute com- i mittee's amendment the Senate rejected, : 38 to 19, an amendment by Senator i Wadsworth, Republican of New York, to i ■make a rate of 28 cents a pound. i Republican senators opposing tariff c rates proposed on low grades of wool lost later in the first phase of their fight : to limit these rates to an equivalent ad : valorem of fiO per cent, and the Senate, i by a vote of 43 to 22, rejected an amendment by Senator Lenroot, of Wisconsin, to provide for a maximum of 60 per cent in the tariff on carpet wools. AUSTRALIAN SITUATION. There is no doubt that certain in-' forests in tbe United States arc fightingstrenously to exclude Australian and New Zealand wool, as well as varieties from the Argentine and other countries, from entering American territory without the ; imposition of a prohibitory duty, which would have the effect of demoralising the market for superior woollen goods. Everybody freely admits and generally recognises that the western woolgrowers of the United States have such a strong ' following in Washington, that if there ' should be any possibility legislation will be rushed through to enable the Westerners to profit largely by the dissemination of their woo! a l] over the States and stave off legitimate competition from Australia and New Zealand. j Frankly, the middle-class section of the American public are willing to pay a reasonable price for their woollen j goods, but there is every promise of a I buyers' strike should these fractious' legislators allow themselves to enact a ridiculous scale of duties in order to ex-i elude Australasian grades of wool from : America. . It. must not be believed in New Zca-1 land and Australia that these le"isla-| tors in Washington are having it all' their own way. for there is a virulent opposition putting up a "stiff fight, and " the newspapers are strongly ranged '■ against the forcing through of a pro- ' hibitory tariff on wools entering « America. ° 1 = ■ l!