WOOL EMBARGO

Hokitika Guardian, 9 February 1929, Page 6

WOOL EMBARGO

OF UNITED STATES. (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) WASHINGTON. Fell. 6. Requests for an increased duty on various grades of wool, including virtually the entire range of domestic production, were made on nohail oT farmers and ranchmen to-dav by the Ways and Means Committee in connection with the tariff hearings. Some of the petitioners asked lor a thirty-six per emit duty on clean pure wool. Others asked a forty pci cent duty. The spokesman for the wool process interests asked that he added to the primary duties additional levies of from three to eleven cents per lb on account of scouring, carbonising and “detain!mg,” where these i’-’v done before importation. The representatives ot the cat pet manufacturers asked that iho provision of the present law allowing the, refunding of duties on coarse tarpet wools be expanded so that the carpet, markers might draw free of duly on the foreign supplies of other lowgrade wools. The representatives of the carded woollen manufacturers asked that all the duties he placed upon a unilorm ad valorem basis. ■ The National Wool Growers 1 Association ''representative declared that the domestic wool production had increased twenty-three per cent, since the Fordney-MeCnmber Act was passed.' He said: “There is a great possibility of a further increase, provided that stability is given to the industry. 'l'he production should overtake the requirements of the nation with in a decade, if the tariff protection is continued.” This petitioner said that the U.S.A. domestic production costs were a little over forty cents per pound for greasy wool, and a little over a dollar a pound on clean wool landed at Boston. Other petitioners asked that the bin-o-ueo-o of the law he made a proof against the defeat of its intent by Court interpretations and by the methods of determining the clean content of imported wool. They claimed that much wool has escaped the lull duties under the present law. .The carded woollen representative said that the present thirty-one per cent specific duty was equivalent to seven tv per cent, of the value of some of tl»> low-grade clothing wools, and he suggested that since little of this class was produced in the I mtod stales the duty should he twentyi'our cents per pound on the so-called “twenty-four” an;’ ’ <wr grades, anrtfuoui mujiiiu, ..v<