Opportunities Lost Through Free-Trade.

One of the most forcible expressions which we have read regarding the mischief wrought by Free-Trade Tariff legislation in so crippling American industrial production as to make it impossible for our country to take advantage of trade opportunities created by the industrial paralysis caused by the European war, is found in the following letter from the secretary of the United States Gold Leaf Manufacturers' Association:

EDITOR AMERICAN ECONOMIST: In reply to your request regarding our dependence on foreign supplies, permit us to say that we endeavored to have the present administration give us sufficient Protection to give a living wage to our employes. They gave us a Tariff reduction. The results are that Germany has flooded the country with gold, silver, aluminum and metal leaf. Every manufacturer of gold leaf at the present time is working under a reduced force. The silver, aluminum and metal leaf manufacturers closed up their factories.

as

Now the demand for our products is very great, but manufacturers will not reopen, their help is gone and they believe that the foreign complications will soon end and the Germans again flood the country with their cheap products.

This, to us, is deplorable. Not only the manufacturers and employes are made to suffer, but the consumer must now suffer. Millions of dollars would be invested in many lines and thousands of men employed if we had Tariff Protection at the present time.

Very truly yours,

THE UNITED STATES GOLD LEAF MFRS.' ASSN., Frank H. Scardefield, Secretary. 28 Marcy avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y., September 24, 1914.

What is true of the domestic gold leaf industry is equally true of many other American industries. But for the blighting consequences of the Free-Trade Tariff enacted a year ago every domestic industry would now be at the high-water mark of activity and producing capacity, prepared not only to meet the new demands resulting from the European paralysis, but in a position to invest new capital and so expand American production as to be able to supply world markets that now find themselves cut off from their former European supply. As Mr. Scardefield puts it, "millions of dollars would be invested in many lines and thousands of men, employed if we had Tariff Protection at the present time."

But, as the case stands, with a Tariff stripped of Protection and designed with the specific intention of promoting the importation of competing products, the opportunities created by the war in Europe find our country in no shape to take advantage of them. Capital will not risk industrial investment in the face of the certainty that when the great war shall have ceased and European production shall have been revived, the dumping of European surpluses in our own market, made easy by the lamentable Free-Trade Tariff, will be on a larger scale than ever before known. American capital will take no such risk. It is only under a sane and intelligent system of Protection that American capital can be induced to enter the American industrial field.

Even before the breaking out of the European war the losses inflicted upon American labor, industry, trade and business as the result of the Underwood Free-Trade Tariff of October 3, 1913, had mounted up into the billions. Now more billions are to be lost to American labor, industry, trade and business because Free-Trade legislation has made it unsafe and impracticable for American enterprise to improve the unprecedented trade and business opportunities opened up by the greatest war in the world's history.

Some day the American people will reach a full realization of what FreeTrade has cost and is yet to cost them. When that day comes the country will be ready to restore Protection as its permanent policy.

Dumping on a Free-Trade Market.

There is no anti-dumping clause in the Underwood Free-Trade Tariff law as regards timber and lumber. A recent dispatch from Vancouver is as follows:

VANCOUVER, B. C., August 27.-The British Columbia Government has decided to lift its restriction which has for several years prohibited the export of logs from this Province to the United States.

There are now approximately 125,000,000 feet of logs in the water here in excess of local demands. All these will doubtless be shipped to Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett for sale in the open market.

Just at the present there is no market in British Columbia, and the Government wishes to assist the lumbermen to realize on their product - so as to keep workmen busy and get in cash when it is needed in war times.

On the 28th of August Representative Johnson of Washington, in a speech in the House, announced that he was informed that 250,000 feet of logs from British Columbia had been dumped into the

waters of Western Washington. This was the first instalment of the 125,000,000 feet of logs that will be dumped on the American market, with the result of taking away the job of several thousand men who have hitherto found work and wages in the forests of Washington. Another object lesson on the beauties of Free-Trade Tariff legislation.

Stronger Than Argument.

A lesson in Protection stronger than any argument is supplied by a business transaction between a New York hay and grain buyer and an Ohio agency. The buyer ordered 16 carloads of hay at the market price. The contract had scarcely been closed when a telegram reached the agency that Canadian hay was offered at $2 less a ton and the buyer wanted the order for Ohio hay canceled. The result was that the hay crop in Ohio dropped immediately $2 a ton. The Tariff on hay is just one-half what it formerly was. and the American farmer suffers accordingly.

Wages always go out when Free-Trade comes in.

A Kindergarten Suggestion.

It is announced that Germany, for the pur pose of cheapening food products to its people, has abolished the import duty. This is commended to the prayerful consideration of the AMERICAN ECONOMIST, THE AMERICAN PROTECTIVE TARIFF LEAGUE and all others who cling to the fallacy that a Tariff is for the benefit of the consuming public.-St. Paul Pioneer Press. It is hardly necessary to bring to bear anything so serious as "prayerful consideration" upon a subject so simple and so trite. German agriculture, under the Protective policy inaugurated by Bismarck, has been brought to a stage of the highest productive efficiency. On the contrary, British agriculture, under FreeTrade, has been well-nigh destroyed. In the stress of war, with millions of agricultural laborers drafted into military service, Germany might well set aside temporarily her Tariff on agricultural imports for the sake of procuring from other countries food supplies for her army and her people which cannot be furnished in sufficient quantity by German farmers. It becomes a military necessity. But with the return of peace will come a return of Protection in Germany. Then food will be as cheap as before in Germany. In view of the lack of familiarity with such matters so frequently displayed by our St. Paul contemporary, we feel like suggesting that some of the vacant portions of the Pioneer Press building be set apart for a kindergarten in economics.

Has Not Yet Performed Its Mission.

The true principle that underlies the Protective system has not fulfilled its day or performed its entire mission to America. As long as it is necessary to foster the development of new or incompleted industries; as long as it is necessary in established industries for the Protection of the wage-earners; as long as it is required to secure by a Protective Tariff to American manufacturers that wise and wholesome preference against foreign competitors which is essential for their successful operations, so long there will be great and worthy advocates of the policy who cannot be shamed or driven from their principles, and who, in the abundance of their faith in the righteousness of their cause, will still continue to contest against the Free-Trade foes of the system in the confidence and belief that the sober thought of the American people will in the future, as it has in the past, approve and support the doctrines and measures of the party which represents Protection to American industries.

"I would secure the American market to the American producer, and I would not hesitate to raise the duties whenever necessary to secure this patriotic end."Words of William McKinley.

Direct Tax on the Consumer.

The howl of protest that went up from New York to California and in the Southern States as well as in the Northern, when the new Free-Trade Tariff Tax was announced, last week, indicated that the consumer was hurt. The party of the New Freedom has forged shackles for so many lines of industry and covered so many necessities in its new bill of taxes that scarcely a section of the country escapes the assessment.

The people feel it in the tax on telephone and telegraph messages, in the taxation of popular amusements, in the extra charge which steamship companies are to make for tickets, and in the higer price of wines, tobacco, etc., which must pay a large share of the new Free-Trade tax.

Even the game of billiards and the innocent diversion of bowling must pay, and the chances are two to one that the size of the beer glass will be reduced in popular saloons where "schooners" have been made a feature. All these petty annoyances to small traders and to the public are due to the utter failure of Free-Trade policies, inability to finance the Government, ignorance of economic principles and extravagance in appropriations. The most serious of all the causes is found in the persistent determination of the administration to recognize the demands of business for adequate Protection from the imports which compete with American products, forcing the closing of American mills and throwing thousands of American workers out of employment.

The tax serves to cover up the heavy losses in revenue which have occurred since the low Tariff has been in operation. The increase in imports and the decrease in revenue receipts are shown in the Government figures reported by the Collectors at Philadelphia and Boston, and fully explained in the Washington letter in the AMERICAN ECONOMOST of September 25. It was a direct contradiction of the administration's claim that the loss of revenue was due to the war. The Free-Traders are evidently worried over the situation, as the majority report of the Ways and Means Committee submitted to the House by Mr. Underwood expressly refers to the Tariff situation, and declares that "but for the war in Europe the new Tariff law and other sources of revenue would have yielded sufficient money to meet the Government demands."

It is evident from the protests of business men that the Free-Traders have made another blunder and have again miscalculated the temper of the people. In their theoretical legislation they fail to take into consideration the practical results and, as in the case of the ship registry bill when it was proposed to admit foreign vessels to the coastwise trade.

they learn of their mistakes only when men of experience counsel them. Whether the successive blunders, both financial and economic, already made by the present administration will be corrected by fortuitous circumstances, like the war in Europe, is purely speculative, but evidently the Free-Traders so far have played in luck at the critical moment when their policy was proving a complete failure.

The load is too great for the Donkey to pull, and the people will join with Uncle Sam in the heartfelt exclamation of despair, "Oh, for the Elephant, now!" Discriminating Duties as a Means of Restoring the American Merchant Marine.

A movement toward the legislative policy which will unfailingly bring about a return of the American flag to the mastheads of ocean-going ships is indicated in the following letter from Senator Wesley L. Jones, of Washington:

UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D. C., September 14, 1914.-EDITOR AMERICAN ECONOMIST, New York City: Along with your splendid efforts in behalf of Protection to American industries I am glad to see you advocating discriminating duties for the upbuilding of our merchant marine. Some permanent legislation should be had soon in order to meet the situation when the war is over. We should no longer be at the mercy of other countries for our transportation facilities. Our losses at this time because of a lack of a merchant marine will be far greater than we would have paid out even in subsidies sufficient to have insured us a merchant marine in the past. We cannot, however, enact a subsidy law that will be efficient, but do believe that a system of discriminating duties would soon result in a splendid merchant marine. I have introduced a bill along these lines, and I hand you a copy. Most respectfully yours, WESLEY L. JONES.

The bill introduced by Senator Jones, which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, is as follows:

A bill for the upbuilding of the merchant marine of the United States:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after 30 days from the signing of a treaty closing the war now existing in Europe all goods, wares and merchandise imported in vessels not admitted to registration under the laws of the United States shall be subject to a duty of 10 per centum in excess of the duties imposed by the act of October 3, 1913, and all goods so imported which are admitted free under said act shall pay a duty of 5 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That the foregoing provisions shall not go into effect as to goods imported in the vessels of those nations with which we have treaties which said provisions contravene until such treaties have been duly abrogated, and the President is hereby directed to abrogate any treaties which would interfere with the taking effect of said provisions in the manner provided by said treaties, and without delay.

It was exactly this policy of discriminating duties, put in force by the act of 1790, that give to American ships 92 per cent. of American carrying trade. If this was sound policy then, why not now?

The new taxes which are to be levied cannot be truthfully called war taxes. They are taxes which the country must pay for the privilege of buying foreignmade goods and for the luxury of a Congress of financial theorists.-Providence (R. I.) Tribune.

Clothing Is No Cheaper.

That the Tariff on wool has had little or nothing to do with the cost of clothing to the consumer, and that Free-Trade in wool has not operated to reduce the price paid for clothing, is abundantly demonstrated by an article from the American Sheep Breeder for September, which we print in another part of this issue. The enterprising editor of that journal addressed inquiries to clothing manufacturers, to retail clothing houses, to department stores and to "made-toorder" tailors, asking whether or not clothing for men and women is sold over the counter at a lower price than eight months ago, or just prior to the operation of the removal of the duties on wool and the greatly reduced Tariff on woolens, which did not take effect until January 1, 1914. The replies are instructive and conclusive. Whatever else Free-Trade in wool and near Free-Trade in woolen cloth has accomplished, it has not realized the claim or fulfilled the promise of the Free-Traders in reducing the price of the clothing worn by the people of the United States. It is costing the Federal Treasury many millions in revenue which must be made good by odious "war taxes." Whom has it benefited? Nobody.

Trade Opportunities and the Tariff.

England is making inquiries here for wire hosiery, dyestuffs, blankets and nails, which she bought in Germany before the war. Her agents are credited with heavy purchases of wheat, oats, horses and mules. We can supply most of these things, but the dyestuffs can only be furnished out of consignments received here from Germany via Rotterdam. England also needs large quantities of spelter for use in the manufacture of cartridge metal.

These various wants bring up the question whether the United States can undertake to supply the rest of the world with the goods the foreign nations require and which they cannot obtain while all Europe is at war. Lower wages in Germany made it possible for wire nail manufacturers in that country to undersell English producers in their own market and the industry in Great Britain died. Free-Trade did it. This serves to illustrate what would happen in this country without Protection. Dyestuff experts tell us that dyes can be made in the United States, but the trade would face the fierce competition of Germany as soon as the war is over.

Let Congress enact a Tariff law with rates adequate to meet competition from abroad and American manufacturers will do the rest.

Free-Trade goods and United States wages are strangers.

THE PROTECTIONIST THEORY OF MONEY.

How the Free-Trade "Scientific Theory" Worked in India, Ireland, Turkey and Portugal. (Continued.)

From Advance Sheets of "The Protectionist Theory of Money," by W. H. Allen. India is another country whose experience is instructive. At one time her manufacture of cotton cloth was such that she supplied the home market and exported to other countries no less than 200,000,000 pieces per annum. In 1813 her markets were thrown open to the world and the native industries were exposed to unlimited competition. The result was a total destruction of native industries and the loss of employment of millions of work

ers.

The "Scientific Theory" was refuted by the experience of India and Ireland just as plainly as it was by that of Turkey and Portugal. The native workmen displaced by foreign competition did not find employment producing other goods for the foreign market. They took to agriculture as the only resort.

Having seen how this theory worked in other countries, let us now observe its operation in the United States.

How It Worked in the United States. The war of 1776 served to exclude foreign goods and thus gave our household industries seven years of as much Protection as could be had from a high Tariff. As a result, the end of that contest found our manufactures fairly developed and prosperous. But after the peace of Paris these industries were effectually suppressed by an inundation of cheaper foreign goods, against which there was no Protective Tariff.

Query: Did our workmen, displaced by these foreign goods, find employment producing other goods to exchange for the foreign goods thus imported? Decidedly, no. We had to pay out our money for them, and our workmen took to agriculture as a last resort. It was not until the National Government was formed and the first Protective Tariff adopted that the influx of foreign goods was checked and our workmen found employment producing the same class of domestic goods. When We Were Flooded with Foreign Goods. The war of 1812 gave renewed stimulus to our industries by excluding foreign goods. The result was a great increase in values of raw material, manufactured goods, as well as of real estate and labor. But after the battle of Waterloo Europe went to work again and began to produce her cheaper goods for export. These goods were dumped on our shores and sold at such low prices that the domestic article could not possibly compete with them. The result was that our manufactures went down like grass before the mower; our agriculture and the wages of labor speedily followed. But our laborers thus displaced did not find work pro

ducing other goods for the foreign market. If an American merchant had demanded that McCulloch's people should live up to their own doctrine, and take what goods we could offer in exchange for theirs, he would probably have been laughed at. The foreigner demanded cash every time.

"The whole of the commodities," says Mill, "which the two countries can respectively make for exportation with the labor thrown out of employment by importations will exchange against one another." Thus spake the closet philosopher, ignorant alike of practical business and the plainest facts of history. A glance at the foreign trade statistics of his own country would have taught him better.

When Trade Is Not All Barter.

Well, as it happens that trade is not always barter, and gold has to be exported for foreign goods, then we are expected to console ourselves with the belief that the gold which remains at home will answer all the purposes for which money is needed. As Bastiat, the great French disciple of Mill, says:

It is a very unimportant circumstance whether there be much or little cash in the world. If there is much, much is wanted; if there is little, little is wanted for each transaction. That is all.

This is similar to Mill's statement that "if half the money of a country goes abroad or disappears from circulation, the other half will perform all the services of the whole."

Fallacy Seen at a Glance. Now in the first place, unless the money supply were cut in half all over the world the price of foreign goods would not be affected in the least by the change. Then there is another way in which the fallacy of this theory can be seen at a glance. Suppose that prices and the money supply in England and this country are the same. Suppose, again, that half the money in the United States goes to England for imported goods. In this way our stock of money would be. halved, while that of England would be increased one-third. Then, according to Mill and Bastiat, a 10-cent loaf of bread here would cost only 5 cents, while in England it should cost 15 cents. Of course it has never worked out this way. The United States has in several periods halved its money supply for England's benefit, but it has never yet found that the half that remained performed all the services of the whole.

Effect of a Decreasing Supply of Money.

The fundamental defect in the "Scientific Theory" is in the assumption that money is only a yardstick and in ignoring the fact that it is the chief producer of wealth. I have already explained how increase of money promotes the production of wealth by increasing the power of people to purchase and consume; it is now in order to consider the effect of a decreasing supply of money.

When money is exported the effect is to lessen the product of wealth by reducing the power of the people to purchase and consume it. Suppose, for example, that as a result of Tariff changes 25 per cent. of the cloth formerly produced here is imported. In that case home labor will earn 25 per cent. less. But the home laborer who pins his faith to the "Scientific Theory" and imagines that the $12 he now earns will buy as much as the $16 which he earned before will find himself grievously disappointed.

Pays the Same as He Did Before. When he takes the car for home he finds that the soulless corporation exacts the same nickel it did the week before. If he wants a glass of beer or a cigar he pays the same nickel he did the week before. If he goes to buy a suit of clothes, a hat or a pair of shoes, he finds prices have not changed a particle. Storekeepers will charge him the same price that they do to other customers whose wages have not been lessened. Should he, still pinning his faith to Mill, tender $15 to the landlord in place of the $20 he formerly paid, he is quietly told to pay the other five or move. Should he happen to own a little house and still seek the still-invisible reduction in lower taxes, he finds that he has now struck the hardest part of the proposition. The political party that swears by Mill on the blessings of Tariff revision downward flouts Mill on the blessings of tax revision downward. And finally, when the disgusted worker gives his wife her weekly allowance, that good lady will undoubtedly find, when she goes to market, that prices have not come down a particle. In these days it is almost a certainty that they will even be higher.

(To be continued.)

More Results of Tariff.

That a Democratic Tariff means less work and less wages for our people was practically admitted by Congressman Underwood when the Tariff bill was under consideration. Mr. Underwood, speaking of the effects of this bill upon foreign commerce, told the House that he and his Democratic associates had carefully gone over the bill item by item and that in their judgment the imports of foreignmade goods into this country would increase by $250,000,000 annually. That means that the American manufacturer will suffer a loss in production of goods to the value of $250,000,000 a year. And it means the loss of wages to labor, for in the long run most of this $250,000,000 would go to labor. Remember, it is the Democratic leader of the House that made this statement, and a year's trial of this Democratic Tariff has proved that he was correct in his estimates, if we will but give the present Tariff a chance to work out its logical results.-Dover (N. H.) Democrat.

QUEER LOGIC OF FREE-TRADE BANKERS.

Why Do They Support a Policy Which Compels the Exportation of American Gold?

By W. H. Allen.

In the past 13 years our excess of exports of merchandise have average about $500,000,000 a year. But instead of getting any cash in settlement of these huge balances, we appear to have exported more specie than we imported. In 1908, for instance, when our favorable balance amounted to $636,000,000, the net loss of gold totaled $30,000,000. Along with these we have been pledging abroad vast quantities of securities, short term notes and finance bills.

The most likely explanation of this mystery is that the exports of merchandise are not large enough to offset our annual foreign debts for interest dues, aliens' remittances, tourists' expenses and cost of freights, and so we have to export specie or securities in settlement of the deficit.

Estimates of Unregistered Debts. Different authorities estimate these debts as follows:

Joseph T. Talbert, vice-president
National City Bank..
Average estimate of prominent
bankers, published in Wall Street
Journal

John E. Gardin, vice-president Na-
tional City Bank..

........

. $1,000,000,000

1,400,000,000

2,000,000,000

Now if we take even the lowest of these estimates as correct, it follows that we are running behind at the rate of $500,000,000 a year. That is about one-third of our gold stock. Every three years our total stock of gold passes over to the control of foreign capitalists, or their agents in New York, and in order to avert its export to Europe we have to pledge all these securities abroad.

Referring to conditions in May, 1913, when we were on the verge of a panic, Joseph T. Talbert says:

Trade Balances Fall Far Short. Whenever we consider the strategic position of the United States, financially, in its relations with other nations, there is one inherent weakness always present and increasing which must be kept in mind. That weakness is the fact that although we normally have a credit balance in trade of $500,000,000 annually, we have in fact other international debits of twice that amount; so that our trade advance not only is wiped out, but as much more gold might be required to settle our foreign indebtedness.

Well then, if Mr. Talbert believes all this, why did he not speak out against the Underwood Tariff bill, which was then before Congress. Did he not know that every decrease in Tariff rates in our history has produced these results: (1) Increased imports of goods; (2) large exports of gold; (3) financial stringency and panics?

They Did Not Warn Congress. With more reason the same questions might be put to these other Free-Trade bankers who estimate our debts at $1,400,000,000 or over. But so far from warn

ing Congress against the financial dangers of such legislation some of them actually approved of the Tariff bill. As for our financial ills, these bankers insisted that they were due to the concentration of surplus interior funds at New York, and the recall of about $200,000,000 of such funds during the crop season. The new Currency law is based on this theory. But investigation shows that this is a brazenly false theory of the matter. In the crop season of the past eight years New York banks have actually gained more cash from the interior than they lost.

The Bigger Drain of $500,000,000. Suppose, however, that New York did send $200,000,000 to move the fall crops, by what process of reasoning do these bankers reach the conclusion that this drain has a more disastrous effect than the other drain of $500,000,000 or more into the foreign banks of New York in settlement of these yearly debts?

If Mr. Talbert or some of these other bankers will send an answer to this question to THE AMERICAN ECONOMIST, I am sure it will be published. This matter has a direct bearing on what will be the most important topic of discussion in the present Congressional campaign, namely, whether the outflow of $125,000,000 since January 1, which precipitated the panic of July 30, was due to the outbreak of war, or to the huge increase of imported goods under the new Tariff law? If these debts approximate $1,000,000,000, then it is morally certain that the new Tariff law, by cutting down our trade balance $181,000,000 in the fiscal year to June 30, 1914, and $28,000,000 more in July, was the sole cause of that crisis.

Information Wanted.

Tell us, won't you, Underwood,
Do please tell us why,
That when Tariffs are made low
Bread is always high?

WHAT THE FREE-TARIFF HAS REDUCED.

Among Other Things, the American Farmer's Market and High Standard of Living.

Doylestown (Pa.) Intelligencer. The Democratic Tariff has reduced some things at least. For instance, federal revenue, industrial activity, confidence in the Democratic party, but not the cost of living, as promised by Wilson. The farmer has been forced into the "world market" at the expense of his own rich, exclusive home market. He must face foreign competition, based on a scale of living that is far below his own. He is no longer the exclusive purveyor to the richest, hungriest, most extravagant 100,000,000 people in the world. He has rivals who are more patient, more thrifty than himself. In exchange for this monopoly he is given an opportunity to buy foreign-made articles at reduced Tariff rates.

What farmer in the United States believes that his own prosperity is enhanced when the prosperity of industry is impaired or destroyed? Does he not wish to see workingmen employed at wages that will enable them to pay for the food he furnishes? What farmer would willingly change his standard of living in order to compete with the foreign farmer whose chief field animals are his wife and daughters? Yet the American farmer must change his standards, to some degree at least, if he is to share the American market with the foreign farmer. The foreigner will improve his condition, and perhaps he will soon be riding in an automobile like the American farmer has been doing in the past under Protection.

Under the Free-Trade Tariff the farmers' products have suffered a decline, wheat having dropped about 18 cents a bushel previous to the war. Wheat should never fall below $1 per bushel in our general markets. That is as low as it can profitably be produced, but it was only a little above 80 cents. Hogs and corn would have seriously declined in price but for the ravages of the cholera and the loss of the crop in four of the great corn producing States. Under normal conditions the large importation of corn from Argentina could only produce a heavy decline in price.

So there have been conditions that have helped the farmer, even though the Democratic party did all that was possible through the enactment of the Free-Trade law for farm products, and the war is now about to make a demand upon the products of this country to feed the armies and the non-combatants of Europe that will tax its resources and require all the surplus the United States can spare.

PROTECTION builds the home, but FreeTrade raises the mortgage.

HAS NOT BROUGHT CHEAPER CLOTHING.

Consumer Pays as Much Under FreeTrade as He Did Under Protection.

American Sheep Breeder.

It

The wool growers of the United States and the country at large never dreamed of free wool under the Wilson administration. Congress itself anticipated a reduction in wool and woolen duties, but not free wool. The House and Senate were practically agreed upon the Underwood wool schedule, but at the last moment the President upset all their plans and demanded free wool, and a free wool bill was passed. No one but the President knows why-unless it be William Jennings Bryan, the Secretary of State. Bryan's bitter hostility to the wool industry is a matter of history, unnecessary to discuss at this time. There may be other reasons for the passage of a free wool bill, but it is generally supposed that the President insisted upon free wool that the consumer might benefit by lower prices for clothing. Anyhow, the country has had free wool for over nine months, which is time enough to demonstrate the theory that free wool means cheaper clothing for the people. would be a waste of time and space to discuss what has happened in the wool and textile trade since last December. Our purpose now is to prove that a wool Tariff has little or nothing to do with the cost of clothing to the consumer. A previous attempt under the Cleveland administration to lower the price of clothing through free wool proved futile. consumer paid just as much as he did under To-day, under the Simmons-Underwood free wool bill, the consumer is receiving no benefit whatever. Clothing is no cheaper to-day than it was eight months ago. The American Sheep Breeder has made a thorough investigation in the city of Chicago and finds that no material change in price has occurred. Like conditions prevail in every city and village in the United States. We have sought information from clothing manufacturers, retail clothiers, department stores and merchant tailors, a number of which are the largest institutions of their kind in the world. The questions asked each branch of the clothing industry are printed over the answers. Questions Asked Clothing Manufacturers. Will you kindly inform us if clothing made by your firm has advanced in price during the past eight months; also if the retailer who handles your clothing has increased the selling price to the consumer? An early reply will be appreciated.

the McKinley Tariff.

Answers: Very Small Advance. Editor American Sheep Breeder:

The

Answering your letter of the 24th instant, we beg to say that the advances in the price of our clothing in the last eight months have been very small. We cannot say at the present time what changes the war situation may bring about in the materials that go into clothing. It natur.

ally will increase them somewhat, but our provisions are made for a long time ahead. HART, SCHAFFNER & MARX. Has Not Increased.

Editor American Sheep Breeder: Replying to your inquiry of August 24, we beg to state that the clothing made by this firm during the past eight months has not increased in price, and we know of no reason why the many retailers who handle our clothing should increase their prices to the consumer.

B. KUPPENHEIMER & Co. Has Not Been Advanced. Editor American Sheep Breeder: Answering your favor of the 24th inst., we want to say that the price of clothing has not been advanced during the past eight months and that we do not believe that retailers have advanced the price of clothing in the meantime, since the price they pay invariably governs the retail selling prices.

KUH, NATHAN & FISCHER Co. No Advance. Editor American Sheep Breeder: In reply to yours of the 24th, there has been no advance in the price of our clothing. So far as we know, the retailer is handling our product on the same margin of profit. Of course this is something of which we have no knowledge and over which we have no control.

ED. V. PRICE & Co.

Questions Asked Retail Clothing Houses. Will you kindly inform us if "ready-to-wear" clothing, both for men and women, is sold over your counters to-day at a lower price than eight months ago? Also, will you tell us if there is any appreciable difference in the cost price of such clothing? An early reply will be appreciated.

Answers: Sold at Same Price. Editor American Sheep Breeder:

In answer to your recent inquiry asking if there is any appreciable difference in the cost price of ready-to-wear clothing for men and boys, we are pleased to state that our merchandise to-day is sold at about the same prices it was some eight months ago; in other words, we cannot as yet see any appreciable difference.

THE HUB, HENRY C. LYTTON & SONS.
No Change.

Editor American Sheep Breeder:
Candidly, I do not think there is any change
of intrinsic value between the prices now and
eight months ago.

MAURICE L. ROTHSCHILD. Slightly Higher. Editor American Sheep Breeder: In response to your letter of August 24, we beg to inform you that we find the prices for ready-to-wear clothing for men and boys for this fall season slightly higher than they were eight months ago. KLEE BROS. & Co.

Not Changed Materially. Editor American Sheep Breeder: Replying to your letter of August 24, will say that the price of clothing has not changed materially, although we will be able to give some better values this fall. The increased cost of production has about offset the reduction in the price of woolens. There seems to be a slight advance on blue serges and clay worsteds, in fact on all woolen goods, which may be due to the war scare and shortage of imported wool. We only speak from the retailer's view of the situation, as we do not buy any yardage for manufacture. ALBERT SCHROEDER,

For YONDORF BROS. Co.

Questions Asked Department Stores. Will you kindly inform us if "ready-to-wear" clothing for men and boys is sold over your counters to-day at a lower price than eight months ago; also will you tell us if there is any appreciable difference in the cost price of such clothing? An early reply will be appreciated.

Answers: Decided Reduction for Clearance. Editor American Sheep Breeder:

Replying to your letter of recent date, all our men's ready-to-wear suits show a decided reduction in price of clearance.

Women's suits vary in price as they did eight months ago from $25 up.

MARSHALL FIELD & Co. Editor American Sheep Breeder: No material change.

MANDEL BROS.

Better and No Difference in Cost. Editor American Sheep Breeder:

Yours of the 29th to hand and contents noted. Will say in regard to the retailing in ready-towear men's clothing, fabrics of some are very much better than a year ago, and no material difference in the cost of same, particularly so in the worsted fabrics. ROTHSCHILD & Co.

Questions Asked "Made-to-Order" Tailors. Will you kindly inform us if during the past eight months you have advanced the price of "made-to-order" clothing; also if the cost of cloth has increased, and if so, how much per yard on the average? Kindly tell us the average price you receive for suits, also the minimum and maximum prices. We are endeavoring to learn the truth regarding the effect of Tariff changes in the cost of clothing. Clothing manufacturers, retail clothiers and department stores are freely furnishing us information along these lines.

Answers: Not Advanced.

Editor American Sheep Breeder:

Regarding your inquiry regarding prices of suits and overcoats we would state same have not advanced in price with us during the past six years, which are from $50 to $75 (according to materials and trimmings) for suits, and from $55 to $85 for overcoats.

Our materials, owing to change of Tariff duties, were reduced (effective January 1, 1914) from 25 to 75 cents per yard, which would make on the average about $1.75 less on the desired quantity of cloth required for a suit. The weight of foreign cloths governs the price per yard, viz.: while 12-ounce to the yard material would cost $4 per yard, the exact same thing in 18-ounce material would cost $4.75 per yard

While the cost of the materials is somewhat less than a year ago, the price of high-grade labor has advanced more than enough to offset it, so taking all conditions in consideration, we feel there is no justification in raising prices, and do not propose doing so.

THE EDWARD ELY Co.,
G. W. Grier, Jr., President.
Not Raised Price in Year.
Editor American Sheep Breeder:

We are in receipt of your letter of the 26th inst., asking us regarding the effect of the Tariff changes on our business, namely, the made-toorder clothing business.

In reply we will state that we have not raised the price on our products in the last year.

When the new Tariff laws first went into effect we were able to give a 10 per cent. better value for the money than we had theretofore, using both foreign and domestic woolens. We, however, found the foreign goods unsatisfactory in a great many instances, due to faulty construction and poor delivery. In lieu thereof we are buying nearly all domestic goods and find a steady raise in the price of them. So far we have made no advance in our prices. However, the prices in both cotton and woolen materials have avanced so rapidly since the outbreak of in Europe that an advance is inevitable with us. What it will be we cannot tell at this time.

war

We manufacture suits from $10 to $30, the average price being $18. Trusting this information will be of interest to you. GRANT TAILORING CO., Max M. Katz, President. Not Advanced Prices. Editor American Sheep Breeder:

We are strictly "made to order" merchants and sell directly to the consumer. We specialize (and have for 15 years) making suits from $55 to $45, and overcoats from $35 to $65. We have not advanced our prices during the period mentioned. We purchase cloth, both foreign and domestic, about 121⁄2 per cent. less than the price paid before the new Tariff changes were effected. The consumer is, therefore, getting more actual value in a suit of clothes at a given price than he has for several years. An honest merchant making a garment at a price of, say, $40, pays a given price for his cloth, and if the Tariff or other conditions permit him to buy a better cloth at that price the consumer naturally receives the benefit. This condition has prevailed on goods bought for fall and winter of 1914 and 1915, but we find in selecting goods for spring and summer of 1915 that the price of cloth for February delivery has advanced equal to 71⁄2 and 10 per cent. more than the prices prevailing before the recent Tariff changes. The merchant, therefore, will be un