in the use of machinery, as had already been illustrated by Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin. The opinion was expressed by several [witnesses] that the mere cost of manufacturing was not greater in the United States than in England: that the American manufacturer could produce at as low prices as the English, if he could obtain his wool at as low prices as his foreign competitor.

One manufacturer said at this hearing:

The high prices we pay for labor are, in my opinion, beneficial to the American manufacturer, as for those wages we get a much better selection of hands, and those capable and willing to perform a much greater amount of labor in a given time. The American manufacturer also uses a larger share of labor-saving machinery than the English.

This is interesting because it adumbrates what now has been clearly proved-that is, that, owing to the superior efficiency of the American workman, the cost of labor per unit is often lower than in Europe, although we pay so much higher day wages. Taussig's conclusions are so convincing, yet put so judicially after weighing all the facts, that I will repeat them. He says:*

This testimony seems to show conclusively that at the time when it [protection] was given, the woolen

*Tariff History of the United States, p. 43.

manufacture had reached that point at which it might be left to sustain itself: at which accidental or artificial obstacles no longer stood in the way of its growth. That many of the manufacturers themselves wanted higher duties, is, for obvious reasons, not inconsistent with this conclusion. Progress had been less certain and rapid than in the case of the kindred cotton manufacture, for the conditions of production were less distinctly favorable. The displacement of the household products by those of the factory was necessarily a gradual process, and made the advance of the woolen manufacture normally more slow than that of the kindred industry. But the growth of the cotton manufacture, so similar to that of wool, of itself removed many of the obstacles arising from the recent origin of the latter. The use of machinery became common, and, when the first great steps had been taken, was transferred with comparative ease from one branch of textile production to another. In 1828, when for the first time heavy protection was given by a complicated system of minimum duties, and when the actual rates rose, in some cases, to over one hundred per cent, this aid was no longer needed to sustain the woolen manufacture. The period of youth had then been passed.

In one respect woolen manufacturing has been under a difficulty in this country that cotton manufacturing has escaped, i. e., early in the development of cotton manufacturing it was settled that this country was to become the great source of supply of cot

ton, and, consequently, it was not necessary to "protect" it by a duty on imported cotton, as little was imported. But the woolen industry has had to suffer from the efforts of protectionists to increase the production of wool in this country by duties on the different grades of imported wool that were not, and, perhaps, could not be, successfully raised in this country, although the manufacturers must have them to produce certain kinds of woolens.

USELESS TO UNDERTAKE TO PROTECT WOOL

The fact is, the protective dogma has not, and probably never can, make good in wools and woollens. It is one of those cases where we can use land, time, labor, and money to better advantage. The doctrine of protection, as well as common humanity and common sense, orders the gradual but steady wiping out of all duties on everything necessary to the health and comfort of the people, unless, in a reasonable time, these duties can supply us better and cheaper goods than we can buy in the world market.*

Other portions of the world are better fitted by nature than we are to raise wool, and, after taking nearly a century to find this out, it would be well now for us to accept the situation.

*Tarbell, The Tariff in Our Times, p. 333.

CHAPTER XV

PROTECTION NOT NECESSARY IN THE
UNITED STATES (CONTINUED)

THE GREEDINESS OF PROTECTIONISTS. THE HARRISBURG CONVENTION

TH

HE woolen bill having failed of passage in 1827, a national convention of protectionists was called to promote protection, principally of the woolen industry, incidentally of other industries, as a means to gain strength. About one hundred persons, mostly manufacturers, met at Harrisburg in response to the call. They asked for even higher duties on woolens than the bill of the same year had provided. The ad valorem duty on woolen goods was to begin with forty per cent, to be raised gradually to fifty per cent. It was to be assessed on minimum valuations of fifty cents, $2.50, $4.00 and $6.00 a yard. The duty on wool was to be twenty cents a pound, to be raised each year two and one-half cents until it should reach fifty cents a pound. Of course, such duties would stop all importation long before this limitation. The woolen manufacturers thus showed their inordinate greed in asking for more than could be expected to be

given to them, when their industry was already well established and needed no increased protection even under the principles of the protectionists' own creed.

MORE PROTECTION WANTED

To overcome or prevent the importation of these English woolens it was sought, in 1826, to apply the principle of the cotton "joker," known as the minimum-valuation system. Meetings were held in Boston of the woolen manufacturers. The legislature passed resolutions, which were presented to the House in Washington by Webster, asking for further protection of woolens. A committee was sent on to present the matter before the Committee on Manufactures, and a bill was reported giving the manufacturers all they asked for. But the bill met with strong resistance by the opponents of protection. To give an example: the duty on goods worth about forty cents a yard would be thirteen and one-third cents if the value was less than forty cents, but would be eightythree and one-third cents if the value was more than forty cents. If the value could be made to appear to be less than forty cents, the importer would save seventy cents a yard in duties.

On the other hand, the system had the want of elasticity which goes with specific duties. All goods costing between forty cents and $2.50 were charged with the same duty, so that cheap goods were taxed