The benefits and costs of the tariff on wool
by Edward Dean Vaughan
A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate Committee it partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Agricultural Economics at Montana State College
Montana State University
© Copyright by Edward Dean Vaughan (1947)
Abstract:
In 1947 legislation was again proposed, that would have, effected a rise in wool tariffs and once more
the question of tariffs became a current issue. This study entitled, "The Benefits and Costs of the Tariff
on Wool", begins In Part I with a description of the climate, geography, location, and marketing
systems of wool producers in various sections and countries of the world. Part II is a discussion, of
United States wool from the standpoint of producers Incomes, costs, and returns, the consumption of
wool and competing textiles; and the prices and production of wool.
Part III gives the dates, rates, and economic situations out of which United States wool tariffs were
formed. The basis of the study will be found in Part IV which presents a discussion of supply and
demand, domestic and foreign competition, and an analysis of the dollar costs and dollar benefits of the
wool tariff* Part V is made up of conclusions drawn from the study* In the appendix there is included,
a discussion of the principal arguments for and against tariffs as a national policy and a glossary of
wool terms. £H8 BMEFIfS MD GOSfS .QF THE TARIFF OI WOOL
by
E> Deem. Vaughisti
A IBBSIS ' ■
Submitted to the Graduate Ooramittee
W
p artial Iu ifilltd eu t of the i-eguirements
for' the dogree- of
M aster Of SoiOuoO1I k: A g rio u ltu ral Beonoinies
at
Montana State College
In Charge o f’ Major Work
Chairman* Examining GdmmitteO
Bogeman*.. Montana
June 1947
r f z n
Y tf'isi £ r
Cjo \) i ^
CONTENTS
T itle
zj
i
5
4
\
sV
Pagi
L ist o f Tables• • • • • • « • • • • • • • • • • « • • • • • •
I4.
L ist o f Figures. ...............................
6
Abstract
7
Introduction
8
Part Ii Woolt A World Commodity . . . . . . . . . .
Principal Producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sheep and Extensive Agriculture . . . . . . . .
Sheep in the Southern Hemisphere, . . . . . . .
Sheep in the Northern Hemisphere. . . . . . . .
Origin o f Breeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A ustralia
New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South A frica. . . . . . . . . . ..................... • •
B ritish I s le s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
South America
The United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparative Costs • • • • « ................. • • • • .
Part IIi United States Wool . . . . . . . . . . . .
Producers’ Incomes, Costs, and Beturns. • • • •
Consumption of Wool and Competing T ex tiles. • .
The Production of Wool. ................. . . . . . . .
Sheep Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Fleece Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prices and the Production o f Wool . . . . . . .
Part I I I i History o f United States Wool T ariff. . •
Sponsorship of the Wool T ariff, Their Objectives
and Methods.
Periods of Strong Demand for Protection • • • •
Early Wool Duties • • • ................................... • • •
From the Civil War to World War I . . . . . . .
World War I to the 1950’s ............................• • • •
Recent Wool Programs. • ................. . . . . . . .
8 4 3 6 :)
2 m
Pap* Xf Dollar Costs and Dollar-' Benefit's
» <> » » »
Supply and Demand «
» « « » ^
6 * * «
Domastiq and Foreign Competition* , * * * , * *
P resen t Wool T ariff# -Its B e n e fits and Coats* «
Part; f t
6
e
.
=
<>
=»
* «
» »
* ,
69
* » ^
■* » "Tl
. .
Tl
Summary and Conelueione 0 » * = «. «. * « » = » = » * » 0
Appendix As P rd te e tiv e Tariffs.* o * « . * » »
. * * *. B 0
P re teo tio n pf' In fa n t InduS triee 0- » * * . * * . * * . < > * « o * 100
* * 101
Home Market Argument,
Wages end the Tariff* *■ = *■ * » « . * * * » * * * * o' * IQfi
P ro te ctin g th e American Standard o f Aiyinge- < ? * , * » , » 103
Thd t a r i f f and Employment * * * * , * * *'» * » * , * o B 105
P ro tectio n o f Tested in te re s ts * * * , * * * * * * * % B * 106
T a r iff as an instrum ent Of B ationai Preparedness* '« *■ * , 106
P ro te c tio n A gainst Dumping* * ». . . , * * , , * .« .* * .+ , IQf
T a riff end Economic; S ta b ility • • • ; * « .« *. * . *. *<>** , , 108
S c ie n tific T a riff * * * » w * 6 » •■%* *• * * # • . < # * B -f W
Conclusions ». » * * «,* * * '«
* * * *: *; * * .* .* ■» *, » * 109
Appendix Bi
Cloasary;* .* * -* * * * ,» * * .#■ » » * * * » « •* * 4 # & /
B ibliography « * » :» « * » » » * * * * » » -* •» * * .»■ .« ° « * .4 m
Acknowledgments * * » * * » » * # « * « * * » » »
*
* ,* * * IiO
■* '%$**-
ia#% { # %#&##. '
.
Ib o i W0&m%im W fba
t&Ak9b*&db/$a#&##r4@#aA@*#*.
'#
III
t
#&
' "
$w a$#b# w #' W
* * * v '* * * *
&@
tWK#
W 1R#&*
@9
$Wi4«@bA .ibwmeA#
WA'from #*#*# .#& W&>8$- ea@ fv m
Tb%a Gbaacwetiba o f %&<&* # # b « *
m® th e
#% $ %$% 4s ©f iWe# # # ^ # 0#» 18&*&4i6i% &4&W*
# A . %$W
* * * * * * » »
$9L
%a# (kwBdkt*k,(5a8w*q*%pi&4cM* # # % # * , 0b#«%ik %ik» 9#&
Wb% W # o Pepoeati-tlwS Ssbh i s ■o f .the-- fo to i
Sb&auwptdoB# WitiOS Btatbbs ■
e. » ^ * # -S *• »
3$
##% ##
36'
#$% #*
M l #bbg% JWbbff on
W W
#■_« » #-
AmoWe 4«
#W #e^
& & % & $$ 4
w
'
* » # .i
A 4 4 #, % * f
* * * *' # e
WAwbe ©f" # b e p $bom $#. W W W @t&Wf
* 4. 4 4 * * #, * * . # *. % » > 4 4 * 4 4 * 4 *
# #
U fa
B e b w w W W ' Af Bbbbk
# ,# SaaolieBji.
*
'
W W m B ew
*"4 # > * 0.4 9 f % * * * & *
IS1
..
W
Aveeege # # w . W g b te W W 9 # W
X Q l0& % tylli§:t> 9 6 4
# g # $ a- & ■'* 4-> -a 4. ■'# 61 #- # a * » :a A
&*f
A W fW % # # W gbbti fe e W W # a 6 BW ee*
W 4 .W „ 6 W 6 » f t * % $ ^ W % f h $ ' f ; ». 4 4 4 4 & 4. « 6. * f ; » ,* 4
.m
./$ # :
#b% W W .# W W . by # W # e W W W W # & \ - .'/ .
##%'%#% i W W W W ' W W B te W f W W W if'. * *' *
9%
W # * e% # A #& # W W
^ $ W .# b # W »
4 % *’ * W P f * * % .» & 4 # #"‘* # '» * * f P
W
A j^ om W ta
#.
e f B W ee # w & a * * * * * *
W W | W W
W W # # ;*
SWggeW-W #W #W @ # # f W l p
# » .* * ■#• '•♦ •»: <fc # 4 # P 4' 4 #- S -6 W * I# o 4
IS ,
*
W
3CV2
0 #
W W 8W # #
jot tooM ' Mnm; $hm W # by
#<M## # # # # # % % #% Siapti^tl bsa#6*4¥
R W m ^ o a * m#. ^ b W A W l^bSe
( ( W u # # W $%
$W tlni'fcod Sta'bsS-S' !L92l|."il9tik *: * » *• % »■ ^ .*. » «;' % * &
76
WooM1-. Comparative P rid e s and Price: '
.:,
D iffe re n tia l# ^ Boston and >London
Airerdg©B>
o' * * 6 F * » 6 ' *. -* O * '4- ■» * 'b' » b » b o' s' 78
MS2 Half-Blood WoOle# Comparative PriOeiej' asid Pri-Oe
DifferentiolBb Boston and: London Eaziretefl Averages,
1 9 2 lj.- 1 9 3 9 “ * O 4 # o '« » o O O d O
HVIil
P a <? O o 9 o. o o
0
Three- -eighthe<»Biood Wools:#- Comparative P rio e s sod
p ris e d i f f e r e n t i a l s , Boston and Hondon Markets,'
Averages., 192li*a1939» «- & & » *■ » ■» » # = a » * 4 , *
79
So
XlH ^uarter-*blbOd Woolsg Comparative P rices and P ris e
D iffe re n tia ls , Boston and London Markets,-'Averages#'
192l!,-1939i)
.9 » b 6 , * 9:
, ns. 4; » b' b
b
Si
XX Average P r ie e D if f e r e n t ia ls and import. Parity
D eficien cies Based on Anntial Average p rices for
Selected Periods, W W
9 «9
SB'
MX BwBefe o f Cheep and ,L a# s on farms- and Banoh©e,
Sheep .and Lsmhs Marketed, Actual and D eflated
Average. P ric es deceived hy farmers# Waited S tates#
1917*19394 .4 '«f * , «t ,
* a »
f * *.# * * * iS * » *
S7
XXil Average Annual B enefit and Cost o f t h e -Iariff" on
Wool# Whited States# I 92ii-1939
, , * . * 9. # = * %f
90
Income ffom'Woolg from Sheep and Latohsg from Wool#
Sheep# and Lamhsg n e t Farm Inoompg. end B atioaal
. Indome-, Waited States.# I92li-1939 -.»■ » * *'* -» « # «f *
9f
XXlV Average Annual Benefits- and Costs of th e Wool Duty
C ontrasting E&sSacMs.ettg: and Montana, 192h®1939 » » ,
94
'I
S ta te s, 192W 939
■
•
1
C
'
O
.
•
»#
■
,
i
>
*•' 6
WW #
%
PioaRBS
Sm
%
%
Sobat GonsumpMpn- o f Wooi.^ GoMpalK S ilk i and
Bapop> 'W ibed SbabePi
'*'» * , . » , # ,
.#- *
Ppa^ Gapiba OonsumpMon o f Wp^ltt' Gobbdn^ Silte*- and
'Jfeyptti 'Gnlbiad Sbabf s> # # * # . * * , « * * > # * * * .*
3
.Sgbimated "PfpulaMon* G iib ed Sbabfs* l#ll» i9 4 G f « « #
%
Wpols, Optbon* Silted and Mayon Oonfutspbion a f a P e rc e n t'o f Total Gonsmaptibn o f the ifm** Bnibed
StatQB* %$\X^%Qbjfpgf ■*■ .*s
v -$ .»■ # -G-.f * -o- o -O- B.
.$
»: o-
54
»
A ll Sheeps Hmnbera. on
and .Banches in th e B aited
S ta te s « B lff Hear A W ragff 1966»1945k' ' Annually l
1^11*1^45*- & * & » f * * *- <r * » t- *- f * •« 4 s A * •« S
«
Comparison o f Sheep Bw hers w ith t h e .P rices of;
WOfIi B fffa and A g ric u ltu ra l labor*.' G nltfd Btatep*19iB*,l$45» * -,». # * e’ »' o' '» o 4- » ' :b -o » o .'ft 'f % o'
o .
e
T
Wool GribSf S f f f iw d by Farmers* '.Shorn Wool Prodnetioni,.
Mnd T a riff Sates on Wool*. H alted S tates* 1911^1945 ■* ■*
e
Comparispn of t h e .AWrage 'Wfetely Wages' o f Workers. In
p rin c ip a l G laeses■P f Manufapture* with, t h e Approxi­
mate Gxtent o f T a riff P ro tectio n f o r Saeh Glafs f f
Manpfaobure^ &. 4, * * * .-e: *. -» .* a e * » » « « *- -* •* *
«
SE
m
7 **
h i 't9hl le g is I a t i oa was again proposed, that would Iiavaa ffe c te d a rid e in wool t a r i f f s and one© more th e question of'
t a r i f f s became a outwent issue*
This study e n title d * "The, B enefits
and Sosts o f th e t a r i f f on Wooiw> begins- in ,Part I w ith a descrip­
tio n o f the- Climate4i geography* lo catio n ,- and m arketing systems
o f wool producers in various sections-and co u n tries o f th e world*
P a rt I l i s a discussion, of United -States wool -from the
sta n d p o in t'o f producers incomes*, costs* end returns* th e consump­
tio n o f wool and competing te x tile s * and th e p ric e s and production
Of wool*
P a rt I I I gives th e dates* fa te s# and- economic- s itu a tio n s
out o f which United -States wool t a r i f f s .were formed*
the b asis o f
th e study w ill be found id P a rt I f which p resen ts a discussion of
supply and demand* domestic and fo reig n competition:* and an !,an aly sis
o f th e d o lla r costs and d o lla r - b e n e f its 'Cf t h e .wool t a r i f f *
P a rt T /is made up. of conclusions d ra w from th e study*
In-
th e appendix th ere i s included a discussion of th e p rin c ip a l argu­
ments f o r and a g a in st -tariff'd as a -national p olicy5and a glossary
o f wool terms*
«*- 8
*
M a n aly sis of th e t a r i f f p o lic y o f a, n atio n o ffe rs th e
research er two a lte rn a tiv e approaches*
One may he c a l l ed the general
approach? th e other the sin g le commodity approach*
Any an aly sis o f .th e o v e rfa ll t a r i f f p o licy of a..nation can,a t best# r e s u l t in a few broad g en eral!n a tio n s» The magnitude of
th e ta riff.p ro b le m makes i t im p ractical i f n o t im possible to under*tak e any general approach*
.
Tb be of p ra c tic a l value, # study of t a r i f f s must, be reduced
to co n sideration.of. th e costs and b e n e fits of th e ■t a r if f for a. Single
commodity#
,The, f a u lt o f th e sin g le Commodity approach i s the f a ilu r e
to consider the e ff e c t of th e t a r i f f on -th e d u tia b le commodity on
o th er d u tia b le and non.f»dutiablo goods, and th e ir recip ro ca tin g e f f e c ts ,
sin g ly and c o llec tiv e ly # on th e d u tia b le commodity .studies*
On the
o th er hand, the sin gle commodity approach reduces the problem to
more convenient s i Se .and. gives an in d ic a tio n of th e e f f e c t s .of. 'a
t a r i f f in term s o f c o sts and b e n e fits received from th e duty on, an
in d iv id u a l item*
This study follow s the SeCond of th e two approaches.^. .
•»
P a ft I
wooLt * mm,B:
P riao ip al proda^art.
Although prodaeed in varying amounts |n n e a rly every country
o f th e Vrorld6 th e production of wool i s concentrated in ten leading
countries*
fa b le
giving production figured fo r the years 1991 to
Igjfi,* shows th a t th e ten leading co u n tries c o n s is te n tly produce from
79 p e rc en t to 81: percent o f th e t o ta l world wool supply# ■A ustralia*
Argentina,s th e P n ited Staten* and Bew Sealand are predominant in
world wool production#
»w*r
- ' 1 P rin c ip a l sources of inform ation for t h is p a rt were: H u ltz*
F„ 8 »* and Bill*, d# A.* Hange Sheep and Wool* John Wiley and Sons*
W6 to , .1931s Walker, J .
th e Marketing o f
Wool in A ustralia., Wew Zealand* ,%e Pnion o f South A fric a , Ehglond6
and prance"* P.S.D^A#, Ie c te ic a l B u lle tin Ho* 12V Washington*. D# ##*
1929| D algetyfs Annual ^oX ' HeMoW f Of AndtfaliW ^nd Wew Sealted*
Dal%et?Fted' 'O o * ',% td ^
-History, o f the. Sheep Ind u stry in th e United S t # # . , V* S'* Government
P fin tin g 'A ffio e ,.'■
A ., fhe Tariff on
Wool, Macmillan So*, Wew .Tork* 1 9 2 if Slimm# %l> S*.*:iahd'-'Stafkey* ■0* P#*
■',ln ^ o d u c to ry ,Bcpnomic Geography, Harcourt;., Bfape ##& Company,' 19L0;
:'W p # g ^ r m # % - n g '. .o f
Wool* FQA B u lle tin Ho* 33,
Washington, DTTTTMay 1939,’ PP,''3 '^O:
S i Coon* J 6 SE*:,
and/Handell,. S. P*, Wool AuctiOns/in: % 0 .P n lted S t a te s 6 PCA. S pecial
Bepart Wo* 86, W a e h in ^ V
t . # ! # ,# ' # ' #
Hyson, Charles D*, "Maladjustments, in th e Wool in d u stry ” ,. Journal, o f
Farm BoonomiCs* 'Menasha, Wisconsin* Voiuxiio■
#ey\i9&% /Pf,
Walker,
Wool Production an d ^ a r N t i n g , BfOedpfS' P u h liea tio h ,
Chicago, ig iti, /fm w ^ F W r W ^ W ^ o y ^ r ^ 107 1 0 .122*
Table I
Wool Production in Ten Lewling Countries and in the World, with Percentages
1951 - 19U7
In M illions o f Pounds
XtjTALS
PitZDDMINMTLT CAkPST
PREDOMINANTLY APPAREL R)0L
United
Union
Ten
New
Coun­
of S. Argen­ Uru- United Xing- Soviet
Austra­
Union Giine India tr ie s World
Year
lia
Zealand Africa tin a Guey States dOB
269.5 305.1
277.1 319.4
289.6 275.2
265.0 210.0
304.3 237.8
302.9 264.0
296.8 233.0
327.7 248.0
310.0 246.2
331.5 270.5
345.0 260.0
340.0 250.0
330.0 250.0
372.0 234.0
365.0 210.0
350.0 195.0
325.0 190.0
364.0
364.0
364.0
348.0
365.0
374.0
366.0
399.0
443.0
474.0
l&iuO
510.0
520.0
500.0
500.0
470.0
485.0
106.0
110.2
104.7
119.0
113.0
116.2
116.3
125.4
133.9
139.0
117.0
124.0
147.9
156.6
175.2
175.7
180.0
442.4
418.1
438.3
429.3
427.5
419.4
422.3
424.4
426.2
454.0
4 /3 .3
455.0
UtilieO
411.3
378.4
341.2
315.0
112.6
118.5
119.9
112.3
105.6
103.8
104.2
115.8
112.7
114.0
91.2
92.3
90.4
06.3
86.6
90.5
73.0
212.0
152.0
141.0
135.0
158.0
200.0
260.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
300.0
290.0
260.0
245.0
250.0
260.0
270.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
72.3
72.0
72.0
72.5
70.9
70.0
60.7
68.7
7Lo
30.5
81.0
33.0
30.0
76.0
75.0
80.0
83.0
2981.3
2983.9
2890.6
2796.5
2843.2
2923.1
2981.7
3083.6
3298.7
3370.3
3393.7
3330.5
3576.3
3175.7
3045.2
3007.4
2968.0
3720.0
3730.0
O
1007.5
1062.6
995.9
1015.ii
971.1
982.8
1023.4
983.6
1127.7
1141.8
1167.2
1151.2
1169.0
1017.5
930.0
970.0
970.0
§•
19?1
1952
1933
1934
1953
1956
1937
1058
1939
I94O
1941
1942
loM
IOiiii
194*?
1946
1947
3540.0
3600.0
3690.0
3700.0
3890.0
4070.0
4130.0
4200.0
4163.0
4l4o.o
3940.0
3730.0
3730.0
3670.0
% that 10
Countries
i s of
Total
80
79
79
79
79
79
79
79
SO
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
Sourcez O ffice o f Foreign Agricultural Relations, "Foreign Agriculture Circular", U.S.D.A.,
SashingtKm, D. C*, June 23» 19U7# P» 5*
*
, SindS Waol
I i
**
a wotl'4 Oomroociitiya i t i s essen tia l to dosorifee1
some, o f th e conditions under which wool i * produced in various p a rts
o f th e world,
■
•Sheep and Extensive Agriculture
$he sheep and wool Ind u stry e x h ib its the c h a ra c te ris tic s ' o f
t ex ten siv e1ag rIo u ltu re y* and is' g en erally located .in a re as unsu ited
fo r in te n siv e u se s.
The id ea l land areas fo r sheep coincide 'With
,those fo r corn* Wheats VOgetahlesil. dad o th er crops,. However,s since
those crops produce more in money value per acre in th e s e favorable
areas than do sheep* th e wool and mutton in d u stry i n pushed out in to
th e extensive land areas' t h a t are le s s f e r t i l e * drier* rougher* or
more d is ta n t from markets, -%n Such areas* sheep produce more in
money value per acre- than do. th e above mentioned, drops*
-
Sheep are. produced p rin c ip a lly fo r meat and wool,# w ith th e '
shins and mill? as by-products*
Sheep are of two main ty p es.
One
type c o n sists of th e mutton breeds th a t are. adapted, to humid areas
and produce h ig h -q u a lity moat b u t r e la tiv e ly in f e r io r .wool..
Other type i s made up o f th e wool breeds.* such as the. Merino,
produce fin e wool but poor carcasses*
adapted to dry. clim ates,.
The
They
The wool breeds generally are
Many successful crosses o f th e mutton and
wool breeds, have boon developed to combine the d e sira b le q u a litie s
o f e&oh»
In comparison w ith cattle,A sheep are p a rtic u la rly w ell su ite d
t© rocky*-hilly a re a s .
Their long pointed noses and construction o f
mouth parts., portalt ,grazing between sad around rocks and close to- the
ground*
Algo^ sheep p a t .more browse and weeds than do c a t t l e y
ShOep in the ,fOhthegh.Hestisphoao
Approximately th r e e -fifth s of.' th e .Worldt S sheep are now' raised,
in th e tem perate zone of the .Southern Hemisphere where th e re ,.an® la rg e
areas of, undeveloped land w ith .sparse population* ' As th e Sheep, lands
o f th e S orthern Hemisphere 'were tak en over by more in te n siv e u se s, ■
flo ck s were moved South*
Scotch*. Welsh, English* and Serman; Shepw
herds were th e o rig in a l w hite. s e ttle r s in muoh of ,A ustralia and HW
Zealand*
Ste tak in g ovdr o f th ese I 1Srge land a reas ex clu siv ely by
grazing in te r e s ts was, no t a permanent thing,
In th e p re se n t century#
much o f the southern pasture lands have become occupied by crop
farmers.
Sheep have moved in to th e dry and h i ll y areas*
"
.Shepp In the Northern Hemisphere
As sheep numbers increased .in th e Southern Hemisphere, th e re
was a marked decrease in th e Northern Hemisphere*
been g re a te s t in the. wool breeds*
This decrease has
A demand fo r high q u a lity mutton
and Ismb has encouraged some production near larg e urban centers*®'
What was form erly sheep range in much of the Northern Hemisphere i s
now in te n s iv e ly c u ltiv a te d farm land*, and sheep are now found in
I* ' . . . . . . . . . . , , W
V
’
^Applies m ostly to Europe .where the s itu a tio n 'in mutton pro* ■
duction i s roughly Comparable to beef production i n th e American
Corn b elt*
the cjooi;,: dry, im fe rtild * o r meuata,l&eus areas., u su a lly some d istan ce
from population centers*
Countries in 1 th e n o rth ern Hemisphere with a M editerranean
type clim atea once im portant in sheep and wool production^ have now
l o s t th e i r lead in world m arkets» Sheep a re ra is e d th ie f Iy f o r .
meat and m ilk purposes*.
She wool i s o f re la tiv e ly in f e r io r q u a lity
and th e fle e c e weight i s low*
from the Balkan countries eastward and northward' through'
Southern Eussia and Gentral A sia, nomads and semi-nomads ra is e many
sheep o f pa i n f e r i o r quality*
th e ;flo c k s are mainly fo r local.use*
The wool i s n e a rly a l l of the carpet, grades*
O rigin p f Breed#
The world i s indebted to Hpaia fo r the development of
le rin o sheep*.
The Spanish Merino* developed in th e e a rly recorded
h is to r y of Spain, ip th e breed from which a l l present-day.fin e
wool breeds originated*
I t was a lean* hardy# fin e wooled breed
w ith the flo ck in g in s tin c t*
fo rtu n a te ly fo r range sheep men#, the '
flo ck in g I n s t i n c t wap a dominant t r a i t and has been tran sm itted to
crosses of Merino and th e mutton breeds*
For many years Spanish •
Merino wool was hig h ly p ri zed* and to preserve a p ro fita b le market,# .
,Spain s t r i e t l y forbade any ex p o rtatio n of th e Merino' sheep*
About
1300# a f t e r the French Conquest of Spain, th e exportation o f Merinos
was allowed and th e breed became popular in many wool-producing
countries*
lij, s»Englandfs highly, v a ria b le c lim ate, topography> and. s o il &F6 .
.responsible fo r most of ,t h e W tto n breeds of sheep*
fhe mountainous
se c tio n developed breeds e f l ig h t tody and long wool such a s the-,
b in eo ls* L eic e s t e r Qqtswold, -and Sbmftey larsth*
developed, opposite types*
The low lands , ,
Examples - o f th ese so -c alled medium-xvool
breeds a re th e Shropshire,. Hampshire,. Southdown, Oxford, Dorset ■ .
Hem,, aft'd Suffolk*; These l a t t e r were developed f o r mutton prim arily*
"with to o l ad s secondary product*
These breeds laefe the-- flacking
in stin c t* .
Successlhl cro ssin g o f th e fin e wool and mutton breeds haft
been accomplished In E nglm de th e Hftited S ta te s , France, lew Zealand,
and in o th er countries*
A few o f the b e t t e r known cross-breeds are-
th e C orriedalo, Golumbia,. Panama^ Bomeldftl e> and fa r ghee*.
The
famous c o n trib u tio n made by France was th e development of th e find
WOol breed from. Spanish Eerines* known as the Bembouillet0
Auetralia
A u s tra lia leads th e world in th e production o f wool* both in
volume, and quality*
percent i s fin e wool.
0 f th e t o t a l world wool production*, about 65
Of t h a t 6$ percent*. A u stra lia produces approxi­
m ately UO p erc en t,
The f i r s t known in tro d u c tio n of sheep in to A u s tra lia was Sn
1788 w ith a shipment of a email band o f F a t-ta ile d sheep,* indigenous
to th e Gape of Good Ilepe-s
fin e wool sheep were introduced in 1789
w ith th e .im portation of twenty-nine Spanish 'leriftos from South A frica*
- X9 - '
Since th e n , th e sheep and wool in d u stry o f A u stra lia has expanded
from le s s than 3,000 sheep' a t •the beginning of the 1800’ s to an
estim ated 93s 500,000 head in 19h7°^ A fter the o rig in a l im portation
o f Merinos, oth er sheep were brought in from England* Praneejl and
Germany*
The p resen t.d a y A u stralian Merino was developed la rg e ly
from stodlcs of Saxony, French* and American Merinos®
days th ere were no wool m anufacturers in- A ustralia*
the wool was shipped to England*
In the early
Thus* most of
In S pite of the- long and costly
Shipping* high q u a lity of the wool p lus.alm ost unlim ited cheap
gracing land made wool growing a p ro fita b le industry*
The sheep ra is in g area o f A u stra lia i s found in an irre g u la r
rin g o f seminar-id grasslands surrounding the g re a t Central D esert,
w ith th e h e a v ie st concentration in Sew- South Wales west of the
E astern co ast range of mountains« The land i s r o llin g , w ith s lig h t
r a i n f a ll and p e rio d ic droughts.®
Merinos predominate, in th is are a,
A few of the mutton type are to be found in more humid areas*
The
gracing area i s tig h tly fenced.,, c h ie fly t o prevent fu rth e r spread
Of r a b b its , and one herder on horseback with a few dogs cares fo r
several thousand sheep*
A u s tra lia l i e s in the $outh Temperate gone and th e inhabited
areas have -a m ild climate*
The tro p ic a l savannas to the north o f
^O ffice of Foreign A g ricu ltu ral R elations, F oreign;Agr i cu ltu r e C ircular* United .States Department of A grlC ulture% % y^2^' /.,,
* H4 e
the
of
mutittoa, br@ad& e%% a#
few ehMp^ Abeepaf tW' ,
W : a % g W # ^ e e a b , ^ * # «n&
# # # # « # * % .W swWfiSftte'riu t i f % - XEiia -$» t f e ##**<*&* @%»#%
-imwMlaW#. e&et ^d.^eaE a f - t # ^Ogwt tW t the ^haqp
wool intosty?,*; a w Of' f t t m .i*®fijrtS»««h*.
. ■ ■
%* of the Op^ly problem# *f m otrall* #ae t@' %#. load- w, .
tho h m # of oetiaere# 'Mbe^al IW groat#* aheap oale#* .W long#
tem leaoea %ero employed to attract aettlora# %eaa pblioiae l # t
■
'
mpetao- # the &rW%# ebaep
B e preaeat #**9& o f
.. -
eradaat# I W $m wtlw W the adyeat # orop, faW a# la the better
%m& ox-mu for cod tbs ahe# todaoWy, Obto the aosi»&rid W . b illy
g.raaiii|5 area# by hroakisg dom large boMiaga of the 'better IaaAa
la ta omalW W to adapted to more W anelve type# of agriWWr****'
# # ea rk o ti# of wool I s w iir a lia .to efSeImtd- $SoSy$I t Is a@ foll##0& S#o@ e are eborSf W f W * graded, baled# W
,
properly IbW oa at the -time of ehear&ag by ,o # e r # She are oS@s
employee# o f the lbrgo # W &<%#*#?. %e grower o o W W W wool
to a brokerage S m , either prlVaWy^maed or,a oooporatlve# for
W * # . oootioA* %o brokere operate oa a ooaalgme&t W id f maktsg
w porobaeea os their own aeoomt#
%be- obiof Odrastage Of the AwatraSe* # a t s # of markotiag
1# that
&radiog*. ma olw elsg, o f wool at th# t w of ,
'^Wge bdl&sge -are WeA more pmporSmally t h # '*WW
oao#- w e teow feglsg the broakW op of lorg# beldlsge Wo, speller
o&be*
' "
? 1,7 ^
Siaea-ring perm its th e buyer to s e le c t e x actly the type- and grade he
desires*
She buyer i s u su a lly w illin g to pay a premium, fo r -Tiyeel
t h a t i s p re c ise ly what tie wants*
I f th e wool has n o t been graded
and ela s se d j th e buyer n a tu ra lly purchases the wool only at .a
discount*
grading#
th in discount g e n erally i s more than the c o st of
therefore* by S tir tia g ji grading* and c la ss in g a t shearing
time* th e producer* in e ffe c t* receiv es a- double premium fo r h is
wool..* Also* sitics th e wool brokerage firm s are dependent upon the
good w ill of th e ir c lie n ts fo r continued business* s e t t l e s tends
to be e f f ic ie n t and a t f a i r rates*
lew-. Zealand
Sheep production i s widespread In Hewv Zealand w ith the
g re a te r concentration, on th e eastern;*, r e la tiv e ly dry* side of the'
c e n tra l mountains o f ,South Island*
‘M erinos are im portant* but the
m o ist clim ate has been mere encouraging to the mutton breeds*
This
emphasi s on mutton has-made- Hew Eealand th e p rin c ip a l mutton exporter
o f the- worlds
Most o f th e high*grade Wool of Hew Zealand i s pro*
dueed Oti .South Is la a d j which has been c a lle d a nSheep man’s paradise1**
The clim ate i s i d e a l| the, grass i s e x c e lle n t; th e re a re no predatory
animal Sg and th ere a re few p ests asid e from a superabundance of
deer#
Wool m arketing in Hew Bealand i s sim ilar to th a t of A ustralia*
w ith p e rh a p s'th e exception of more stress- on government^Spousored
cooperatives#
18 r
South
, The sheep in d u stry of the Union of South A frio a i s sim ila r
to th a t of ,A ustralia In sev eral lfways,?
The c lim atic and. topographic
in flu en ces are sim ila r in th a t th e sheep. in d u stry i s located, in th e
highlands which are too dry fo r a g ric u ltu ra l purposes other; then
grazing*■ She South,A frican m arketing system has been p a tte rn e d .
a f t e r 1th e A u stralian system* . .however, wool q u a lity , g ra d in g ,-and
s e llin g i s in fe rio r' in South A frica*
At. p re se n t, th e government o f
South A frica i s undertaking a program- f o r improvement, in. th e wool
in d u s try east ending from flo ck improvement to e f f ic ie n t marketing*
South A frican sheep-men are plagued by predatory animal's#
heavy lo sse s from, p a r a s itic p e sts "and. d ise a se s, and a re subjected
to abrupt v a ria tio n s in rain fall* tem perature, type of feed* and
a ltitu d e *
The o rig in a l w hite s e t t l e r s o f South Africa,- th e Boers, did.
l i t t l e toward sheep improvement u n t il English s e t t l e r s imported
Merinos and o th er -breeds*B ritish , 'is le s
. BLigh grade sheep in northw estern Europe a re ra is e d i n .s ig n if ic a n t numbers only in -Scotland and England,,
form erly, sheep
were, im portant to. th e economy Of France,, Belgium, and Sermany as a
source of-raw m a te ria ls fo r th e weaving industry*
Population pressure
has now forced th e few remaining sheep in to h i l l y regions*
'Conditions f o r th e sheep and wool in d u stry of th e B ritis h
I s l e s are q u ite u n lik e those of Southern Hemisphere c o u n trie s, and
19 +
fo r the ”t e r r i t o r y Wdoln are a of the h a lte d States=
IThe B ritis h
' I s le s are a larg e oonSumiag ra th e r than p rin c ip a lly a. producing
area»
The humid clim ate» v a rie d s o ils and topography, In combination
w ith a t a s te f o r mutton* have le d to the preponderance o f mutton
breeds over Merino or other fin e wool sheep»
f o r the. most part* th e wool i s handled through & la rg e number
o f cooperatives and Sold a t auctions
World wool market p ric e s are.- u s u a lly quoted on th e b asis of
London prices* as London i s th e la r g e s t wool market in the- world*,
Since th e wool, received a t London i s from such a variety o f sources
and i s also of a v a rie ty of grades and preparations*, a l l types of
wool s a le s are made In th e London market*
Amounts sold through the
London Wool Auction are great, enough* however,*- t o , s e t the p rice s o f
p riv a te sales*
; ■1
South America
The South American sheep and wool in d u stry i s centered in
A rgentina and Uruguay=,
The sheep areas in A rgentina and Uruguay
are f la t, to ro llin g and dry w ith few stream s and are su b je ct to
freq u en t droughts«, n o t u nlike th e grazing land o f A ustralia#
A rgentina’ s economic h e a rt i s in the Pampas* which are devoted
to stock raiding*
Some grain i s also grown*
w ith m oist h o t Summers and cool dry winters*
perm its continuous grasing*
The clim ate i s mild#-.
Tear found mild weather
The s o ils of the Farapas are roughly
s im ila r to those o f the United S ta te s Plains.#
Merino sheep and beef ■
•V- 20 *
<?fettle were prominent in th e e a rly development o f both' Argentina
and Uraguay-tv
Uruguay i t a t i l l n e arly fell p a sto rale ' -In Argentina*
in te n siv e farming in gradually 'becoming important* "b u t th e system
o f la fg e landed estfetea s t i l l favors gracing over c ro p ■farming=
Wool m arketing in South M erifea i s rath e r unique*
AU wool
purchases' are made by a few la rg e -sc a le c o lle c to rs who s e l l d ire c tly ,
to im porting companies in fo reig n consuming countries, and to buyers
in South America rep resen tin g th ese companies*:
fhe United S ta te s
............. ......
Sheep #nd wool grooving in th e United S ta te s i s thought to
have had i t s foundation when Uolumbus brought sheep, to th e Western
Hemisphere*
Ihe sheep supposedly brought in by Oolumbus may have
been th e ancestors o f th e Mexican sheep which formed th e b a sis o f
j
wool growing in th e Southwest*
'
. E nglish sheep were se n t to th e f o r th Amerioen colonies in
1609 snd Dutch sheep were imported in 162=5 in to what i s new'few York
S tate*
By 17OO a l l the colonies hfed a few sheep*
Yhe f i r s t MeHtios
were imported in th e f i r s t decade of th e 1800*5» p o p u la rity of the
Bambouillet began between IHh-O and I860*
th e re are'tw o 'd is tin c t types o f operation in th e sheep and
wool in d u stry of th e United S tates*
Pfezm operations w ith small flocks
are confined to th e e aste rn h a lf 1of the country w ith some in ir r ig a te d
areas o f the Wfest# $ti t o ta l amounts of mutton fend Wool produced,. farm
o p eratio n s account fo r about, on e-h alf of the United Htatefe* to ta ls *
21
Hev^r-fchele6s > i t i s ia th e gange aros. .th at th e -sheep and -wool in d u stry
is. e f prime ImportaB-Oe j n o t only because of yolume, b u t -because the
in d u stry is ' a mayor one in the- West end i t well.-'organized fo r
le g is la tiv e purposes#
•
Ihe importance of th e Bahge are a o f the United S ta te s i s
another example o f th e f a c t th a t sheep a re mere numerous- in regions
.remote- from densely populated areas*
t h is i s e a s ily understood when
th e follow ing four fa c to rs a re considered; • .
la
Wool has- a high value in proportion to i t s
b u lk , and i s e a s ily sto re d and transported#
Sft- She flocking i n s t in c t i s an invaluable a id
to growers out in the ’-side open spaces-l,0
34- Sheep' lik e weeds and shrubs as w ell as grass#
and c a n .do w ell without w ater f o r longer
periods than oth er liv esto ck ^
i#
land values in areas d is ta n t from population
cen ters a re g e n erally low*
the- Bdnge are a covers n e arly h a lf of th e t o t a l acreage
o f the United States#
I t I s lo cated in .the eleven w estern s ta te s -
end -the w estern p a rte o f Horth -Bskotdi- -South Bakhta# Hebraska,*
Kansas.,: Oklahoma# and leases*
O llm ati6 conditions on th e range, are highly v a ria b le with
p r e c ip ita tio n .varying from oyer
inches- annually in Washington -
td- 8 inches annually in Hev&da-s
Temperatures range from minus S3 .'
degree#-in Montana to 12g degree# in C alifornia*^
^Taken from r a in f a ll and tem perature d a ta a# g iv en 1In th e U=. S>
Bepartmeni of A g ricu ltu re 19lil Yearbook o f A griculture# 11Glimate end
MAn*, Washington# B, G=# 1 # :',' pp.
9# *
W
* 22 -
She topography Pf th e range ineludes n early every Ponoeivable
V ariatio n o f th e e a r th is su rface,
l o s t o f th e .a re a i s above 2*000
f e e t in e le v atio n and much of i t i s above Lj.3Q90 feet*
Xn th e valleys,
and along stream banks are meadows of n a tiv e grass which make tip ala rg e p a rt o f th e Wegtls hay orop*
Srasing rights- in N a tio n a l■
f o r e s ts > in ad d itio n to la rg e private, holdings, are very im portant '
to th e sheep in d u stry ,
Bmnity among, sheep-men,, -cattle-man,, and farmers., although
now reduced to p o litic a l bickering* has never ceased sin ce th e radge
was Opened,
Sheep e a t the grass, to o close to th e ground and ruin the;
range fo r cattle*,
farm ers, since th e Homestead l e t s .were passed,
plowed up the sod and fenced in th e w ater h o les which gave Sheep-men
imd cattle-m en a common cause*
Today th ere i s a f a i r balance among -
th e th re e , but problems such as overgrazing* Water rig h ts ,, s o il con*
se rratio n * and plowing of land too d ry fo r farming are s t i l l to bef i n a l ly solved*
o th er im portant sheep, .raisin g a re a s in the- W ite d S tates a re
in th e h i l l lands o f Ohio, western Pennsylvania, Hew England, -andthe southern Appalachian Mountains,
■_
'
Comparable to England6s sheep in d u stry . Waited S ta te s sheep
o u tsid e th e "range avea" are raised- more fo r mutton than fo r wool, .
w ith th e exception Of a few a re a s as in, southern Ohio where Merinos
i ■ /
. a re im p ortant, .
.
Wool marketing in- the- H hlted .States' begins "with the, sale by
.growers to lo c a l dealers-, to buyers for- larg e '.Central markets,; o r to,
a cboperative- organization*, AU along the route froze grower to m ill
consumer* the wool i s sold "as Shorpft and "in the grease" because
U nited S ta te s wool growers' do no t wash, skirt,* o r grade th e i r
fleeces*
However, p ric e s paid fo r wool, " in th e .grease" ta k e ' in to
co n sid eration th e buyers* estim ate o-f shrinkage so- th a t a c tu a lly the
purchaser i s buying M s estim ate o f th e weight of scoured wool, in
th e fleece*.
Sales by. th e grower are u su a lly f o r capfe o r consignment
to a c e n tra l m arket o r by o o h trao t p rio r to shearing time,#
Most o f 'the wool marketed ev en tu ally a rriv e s a t one o f the
fo u r la rg e c e n tra l markets* re g a rd less of the channele .. ,along which
i t proceeds.
The four p rin c ip a l m arkets are Boston, Shio&go* St*,
bOUiS*. and Philadelphia^
markets*
Boston I s the most im portant o f the. four
At th ese p rin c ip a l. markets,,, th e wool, is: received by large*-
soal-o merchants, who grade., s t o r e a n d f in a lly s e ll to woolen m ills*
Very l i t t l e has been accomplished in the few attem pts a t ■
auctioning wool in- th e United States*-
farmers* cooperative se llin g
o rg a n isa tio n s have become im portant in Some areas as bargaining
agents f o r growers*
Comparative Ousts
'In a study o f wool and wool t a r i f f s * i t would be highly
d e sira b le to compare c o sts of production in the leading wool*
producing, countries*
Buch inform ation would b e 'o f value In. drawing
conclusions on th e j u s tif ic a tio n of wool ta riffs* .
U nfortunately,
th e re I s no source from which comparative co st d ata are available?.
Pago 25
a reproduction o f an o rig in a l l a t t e r from th e United
S ta te s1 T a riff Oommieeione, An in te rp re ta tio n of th e l e t t e r might- be
th a t sin ce the T a riff Oommitsion has no inform ation on foreig n to st#
o f wool production^ th e d u tie s on wool are -purely a rb itr a r y amounts ,
designed to give an advantage to th e United S ta te s producers,' ra th e r
than to eq ualize coats*
Fortune Magasine has given some sketchy fig u re s on labor
c o sts Comparing A u stra lia to th e United S tates*^ According to
Portunej on© A u stra lia n herder tends 4,000 shdep f o r a ' t o p wage of
$90-' p er month plus board-,;- Whereas th e U nited S ta te s h erd er tends.
BOO sheep f o r #150 to #200 per month plus board,, p lu s a radio*, plus
a v acation w ith pay*
.I t i s g en erally conceded t h a t the U nited S ta te s has t h e •
h ig h est co st o f Wool production add t h a t in. Southern hemisphere coun*
t r i e s , e s p e c ia lly south Africa#, costs- o f production are re la tiv e ly
much lower,- c h ie fly on account Of th e d ifferen c e s in labor costs and
in lab o r e ffic ie n c y .
Although th e inform ation in the preceding paran
-graph# as given hy fortune Magazine* Is -distorted by Wartime oondir
tio n s , i t i s in d ic a tiv e o f th e d iffe re n c e s between United S ta te s and
A u stralian production c o s ts ,
■grazing land i s fen ced ,^
As was s ta te d earlier* much of A u s tra lia 's
S iis allow s one herder to care for- many more-
__________ _________ ____
’•
,
1
^Fortune* "The Trouble with u. 8* Mdoi** Volume 33%V*'#a* I*
January IWzThPp^ 92-97»
"
^See- page 1^#
•«
*■
I#4
W IflD SfAflS TAMFP 'GOMISSXOiJ
Washington- 25$ D00»
O ffice of th e S ecretary
' J u ly 18>. 19#
Mr,. 1» Bess Vaughan
Montana. S ta te Oollege
BoteiBians Montana
Dear Mr* Vaughahi
I have your l e t t e r of J u ly 10 requesting cost, o f
production fig u re s fo r th e IG leading wool pro­
ducing countries*.
U nfortunately we have no U p-to-date data- f o r o th er
c o u n trie s» We know th a t c o sts are much-higher than
before th e war, b u t no other B'b.wrnment- has made a
d e ta ile d c o s t study In repent y e a rs» Since 1920
only general e stim ate s-o f costs have been made > and
even then only in one or two c o u n tries f o r th e years
p rio r to th e wasyI g re a tly re g re t our i n a b i l it y to supply t h is in*
formation* We would lik e to have I t ourselves*
Sincerely yours*
(Sgd0 ) .-Sidhey Morgan
Sidney Morgan
S ecreta ry
sheep than i s .possible under Operwange eonditidna as e x is t in
th e w estern United, S ta te s and consequently,reduces labor costs
considerably,,
M' 2 7 '4 •
- UH Tin s m m mm*
pKedy&ergf Incomes^ Costs., and Heturns
BeOidntly th e re has been considerable discussion on the. to p ic
o f p r o f it and lo s s in. th e'sh ee p and. wOol in d u stry # . $ho cause o#
Such d isc u ssio n , i n ad d itio n to th e p u b lic ity received by current
wool le g is la tio n , was- a re p o rt by the ’U nited S ta te s t a r i f f Gorarni s s i on
on th e c o sts of production o f wool.# sheep.and lambs published in
February 19k7*
. Ihe re p o rt shows that from l9i$0 through 19h6 sheep
men operated a t ae lose*
S im ilar studies made by .Peterson^ and.
StuCky^ re p o rt '& p r o f i t to sheep Sen during th e Seme- period*^
' 'She Peterson and Stueky re p o rts covering only Montana sheep’
ranches are p o t s t r i c t l y comparable to th e f&rif-f Commission re p o rt,
^United S ta te s t a r i f f Gdwiission, iSstim ated C osta. o f ,Pro*
auction Of .Wool , Sheep, and 'hambs In 19W
% r '''t h e -PeBcd'
0
■
Peterson-# B. B»„ Typical One^Baad Sheep Pauchk Mountain
V alley, end Typical
''^f'"Sgr^
c u ltu ra l BeondMlpS l';®n^'l/'th,er‘Montana "Msparimeht''''.station cooperating#
Boseman-j, Montana^ Hovember 19U5# .(Unpublished manuscript*.)
j■
1
tStuckyi. H* R ., Montana- Sheep Ranph Btudyy prelim inary
Seportj, Montana lg ric u l# ra l'"''B ^ ^ R m e n t S tatlpnT ^ozm an,- Montana#.
January 191)6.
^1The study -made- by H# E*. Stuoky WaS fo r th e year 19bh only,
B». B* Peterson *s re p o rt included th e years 1929 to 19li5o
&$ W
t h ls h covered
Wnitad Stateng:. ,however^,, a comparison o f the three;
ttiip&H® may be Of Value in in d ic a tin g th a t the su b je c t o f producersincomes, c o s ts , and re tu rn s i s controversialo
$he T a riff Ooinmisgion report# which shewed th a t: sheep men
operated.at. a l e s s from l$ k3 to 1# 6* might h;e supported by haying
t h a t lo h sen on sheep and- wool are- responsible fo r th e decline- i n
sheep numbers Since 19k20^
On the o th e r hand, th e P eterson and '
Stuelcy- r e p o r t s w h i c h showed" t h a t ' sheepmen operated a t a: p r o f it
during th e same p e rio d , might be supported by saying -that- although
sheep numbers did d e clin e a f t e r 191*2,, th e decline was n o t because
there- was no p r o f i t in mutton and wool,' bu t whs more I lW ly because
there'w as more p r o f it in altern ativ e" e n te rp rise 's, such as cattle,
r e la ln g , '
-' "
-
' Which o f th e rep o rts is 1 the more accurate i n "presenting th e
' actual' s itu a tio n o f - re tu rn s to sheep' men' cannot he d e fin ite ly
S tated w ithout considerably more study th an 'can be made a t t h is ■
time*' Howeyerv i t i s th e opinion o f th e author that, the Peterson
and Stucky re p o rts for-'-Montana were based on more unbiased data
then was. th e t a r i f f -Gommission report*- and 'were, th ere fo re ,, more
n e a rly accurate* '
'fable I I p resen ts a comparison' o f producers incomes, costs
and re tu rn s a# rep orted by the th r e e aforem entioned s tu d ie s *
'
!.
-
-.
%,ee ta b le IT, page 1(2, fo r numbers of sheep on farm s.
29
Table II
Producers Inoomea, Costs, and Returns from Wool; from Sheep
and Lambs; and from Sheep, Lambs, and Wool
Tear
19L0
19U
I9h2
19L3
19hk
19U5
19U6
19it0
19U1
19h2
_ 1 9 id
19UU
19U5
19U6
IQliO
19hl
19U2
19ii3
19Ui
19U.5
19U6
T ariff Com. Report*
Peterson Report**
Stucky Report6
Wool
Sheep
Sheep
Wool
Wool
Sheep
Sheep & and
and
Sheep *
Sheep I
and
Lambs Lambs Wool Lambs Lambs Wool
Lambs Lambs Wool
Operators income per Hea
*5.26
*2.7lt *2.52 * 5.83 $2.90 $2.93
3.76
6.83
3.07
8.39
lx. 57 3.82
7.57
9.30
L 23 3.34
L 37
U.93
6.96
3.50
3.L6
5.92
10.55
lx. 63
6.66
3.U2
10.35
5.52
lx. 82 $9.99
$5.85 $3.7ii
3.2U
6.35
3.38
10. Ilx 5.1x3 lx. Tl
3.U7
7.68
U.17
5.51
Operators Cost per Head*
*5.32
$2.68 $2.6Ufl $3.86 $1.92 $1.9lx
5.86
3.10
2.761
Iu 98
2.71
2.27
6.1i3
3.lilt 2.99fl
5.1x3 2.87
2.56
7.08
3.39
3.6911
7.07
3.97
2.10
7.88
7.20
3.8li IuOli
3. Six 3.36 *lx. 17
*2.55 $1.62
U.02
8.36
3.80
7.10
3.30
U.3U
8.86
U.56 ^ 3 0
Operators Return >er Heat
* .06 + *.06 - $.12 **1.97 * .98 +$ .99
+ .97 + .66 * .31 + 3.1x1 + 1.86 + 1.55
+ 1.1U + .79 + .35 + 3.87 * 2.06 t 1.81
- .12 - .11 ~ .23 + 3.1x8 + 1.95 f 1.53
- 1.22 - .1x2 - .80 + 3. Ilx + 1.68 + 1.1x6 +$5.1x2 + $3.30 +$2.12
- 1.51 - .55 — .96 + 3 .Olx 1.63 + 1.1*1
- 1.18 - .39 - .79
aUe S. T ariff Commission Estimated Costs o f Production of Wool,
Sheep and Lambs, in 19U5 and 19^6 Compared with Data for the Period
19l|D-l^, Washington, t),d ., February 1947» ^rom table I , p',' 4.
Peterson, Ee E#, Typical One-Band Sheep Ranch, Mountain Valley
and Typical One-Band Sheep Ranch, P lains, B.A.E. and Montana Experi­
ment Station cooperating, Aoeeman, Montana, November 19^5# From
tables on pp# 15 and 38 and ppe 18 and Ul resp ectively.
0Stuoky, H, Re, Montana Sheep Ranch Study, Preliminary Report
Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman, Montana, January
19U6, from S ta tis tic a l Supplement.
^Includes* Operating Costs, returns to capital and land,
unpaid family labor.
Goaauraption o f Wool
, - S o m p t t i a g eg.
Wool is' by no means a ’product for which, th e re i s no su b stitu te*
Qempeting w ith wool fo r consumers* t e x t i l e d o lla rs are co tto n ^ silk,*
*
*
£
rayon* a n d ,.in yeoent years* nylon and other synthetic te x tile s ,- •
From \aa examination o f ta b le I I I and .figure1 I*. I tw a n bw
seen th at, the t o t a l oonaw ptibn e-f wpol -and ootton rose slow ly during
the- .period 1911 to.
while: rayon increased tremendotisly,
the
t o t a l oonsumptioh o f wool and cotton were- remarkably sim ila r and Were
both r e la tiv e ly stable- u n t i l th e l a s t eleven years*
■consumption of both has increased considerably,
-Sinoe 193k t o ta l
t o ta l consumption
Of s i l k a lso rose ra p id ly up to 1929* b u t th e re a fte r decreased to no
•.
recorded sa le s a fte r l-fifU.
Table I? ,and fig u re 2* giving, d a ta 'f o r th e p e r c a p ita -Ooa-*
sumption of Wool-, cotton,, s i l k , and rayon in d ic a te t h a t , although
th e p a tte rn s of both t o ta l 'end per c a p ita consumption, of th e four
t e x t i l e s had been very s im ila r, th e ra te -'o f in crease in per -capita,
consumption o f a l l was a t a slower r a te than the ra te -of increase
in t o ta l consumption*.
The s li g h tl y g rea ter r a te s of in cre ase in
t o t a l consumption over those o f p er c a p ita consumption may be ex­
p lain ed by th e .fa c t- that- the r a te t# _population g r o w t h a n d thus Of
Z
yBata on. th e price#*, production, -and .consumption o f nylon and
o th e r sy n th e tic t e x t i l e s i s inadequate fo r purposes o f comparison
w ith th e e sta b lish e d te x tile s * th e re fo re , only wool, co tto n , s i l k ,
and rayon w ill be considered here*
Tabla I H
Total 0o»sutaptioa o f Sool, Ootton. S ilk , and Payou and
tho Poroont that Saoh la o f the Total Oonauisptlon
United S ta tes, 1911-1^5
Year
Total
In M illions o f Pounds
Wool Cotton S llk a Rayon Total
247.5
277.0
1913 228.5
1914 271.7
191? 350.8
1916 362.1
1917 345.0
1910 399.3
1919 329.1
1920 314.2
1921 M - h
L06.5
1923 422.4
1924 3L2.2
1225. 349.9
1926 342.7
1927 354.1
1928 333.2
1929 368.1
1930 263.2
1931 311.0
1932 230.1
1933 317.1
19m 229.6
1935 417.5
1936 L06.I
1937 380.8
284.5
p939l 396.5
407.9
647.9
6l BeU
624.1
622.6
| i 9 l 5 | 645.1
1911
2477.9
2664.7
2699.7
2715.8
3094.3
3271.7
3155.4
2783.7
3096.8
2370.1
2818.6
3199.5
2709.6
2960.0
3084.8
3Ji02.1
3313.2
3434.4
2975.8
2549.5
2395.2
3003.7
2809.6
2608.9
3102.1
3470.0
3645.9
2917.7
3623.6
3958.7
5191.5
5633.1
5270.6
4790.4
4522.5
2753.4
2974.9
2966.2
3023.3
3470.7
3680.8
3550.2
3243.2
3490.2
2731.8
3233.6
3688.5
3226.1
3404.0
3569.0
3962.3
3852.4
3955.3
3574.1
3012.1
2950.7
3ii63.9
34l4*U
3096.1
3851.0
4266.1
4395.1
I 5£9»U 3588.6
458.7 4539.1
47.6 482.0 4696.2
25.6 991.8 6456.8
620.6 6869.1
656.1 6550.8
704.7 6117.9
767.5 5935.1
25.9
29.5
34.0
30.6
33.0
40.4
43.0
48.2
55.0
38.8
51.8
57.8
6 l. 5
59.6
76.0
76.9
85.0
87.2
96.8
80.6
87.5
74.8
70.4
60.4
72.4
67.5
64.2
57.0
2.1
2.9
4 .0
5.2
6 .6
6 .6
6.8
6.0
9 .3
8.7
19.8
24.7
32.6
42.2
58.3
60.6
100.1
100.5
133.4
113.8
159.0
159.3
217.3
197.2
259.0
322.4
5 0 ^7
Pareeuti that each i s of I
Total Jonsump blew
Wool Cotton S llk a Rayon
9.0
9.3
7.7
9.0
9.7
9.8
9.7
12.?
9 .4
11.5
10.6
11.0
13.1
10.0
9.8
3.6
9 .2
8 .4
10.3
8.7
10.5
6.6
M
7.u
10.8
9.5
8.7
7.9
8.7
8.3
10.0
9 .0
9 .5
10.2
10.9
90.0
89.6
91.0
89.8
89.2
88.9
88.9
86.0
83.7
86.8
87.2
86.7
84.0
87.0
86.4
87.9
86.0
86.8
83.3
86.6
81.1
86.7
82.3
84.3
80.6
81.3
32.9
81.3
79.9
30.9
80.4
82.0
80.5
73.3
76.2
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
0 .9
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.7
5.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.8
W
1.2
1.0
.6
e#
4»
-
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0 .2
0 .2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0 .6
0.7
1.0
1.2
1 .7
1.6
2.6
2.6
3*7
Lo
5.6
4.5
6.3
6.3
6.7
7 .6
6.9
9 .2
10.2
9 .8
9 .2
9.0
10.0
11.5
12.9
aHo o f f ic ia l sales alnce ijU2*
Souroeei
UeSeDeA ., "Agricultural S t a t is t ic s , 1945"» P» 85*
UeSeDeAe , "Agrlcultural S t a t is t ic s , 1946*# p. 88.
- 32-
COTTON
(M illio n s o f Pounds)
WOOL
♦No o f f i c i a l !!ales
s:.nce 1 9 l 2 .
RAYON
Year
. 1939
191+3
Figure I
Total Consumption o f Wool, Cotton, S ilk , and Rayon,
U nited S t a te s , 1911-45
S o u rce:
Table I I I , page Jl
I9i4.7
- 33 -
Table XV
Per Capita Consumption o f Wool, Cotton, S ilk , and Sayon
and the Peroent that Baoh la o f the Total Consumption,
United S ta tes, 1911-191*5
Percent that each Is
o f the Total
Per Capita Consumption
in Pounds
Year Wool
1911
1912
1913
19lL
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1925
192*4,
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
193U
1935
1956
1937
1938
1959
iqLo
19U1
192*2
192*3
192*2*
192*5
2.61*
2.92
2.35
2.7l*
5.55
3.55
3.33
3,82
3 .1 )
2.95
3.16
3.69
3.77
3.00
3.02
2.92
2.97
2.76
3.02
2.12*
2.51
1.81*
2.53
1.82
5.26
3.15
2.92*
2.18
5.01
3.07
24.83
I*. 51*
I*. 52*
I*. 58
U. 59
S llk e
Cotton
26.20
27.70
27.50
27.20
30.60
31.80
30.30
26.60
29.30
22.00
25.70
28.80
23.90
25.70
26.2*0
29.1*0
27.60
28.30
29.30
20.60
19.20
22*. 00
22.50
20.60
22*. 10
26.90
28.10
22.30
27.50
29.80
38.70
ul.oO
38.2*0
32*. 50
32.20
.28
.31
.3 5
.31
.37
•60
•2*2
•2*6
.52
.36
.2*8
.52
.55
.52
•66
.65
.71
.72
.80
.6 6
.71
.60
.56
.2*8
.57
.52
.6
.2*2*
.1*2
.36
.19
m
e#
m
OS
Bsyon
.02
.03
.oL
.05
,06
.06
.07
.06
.09
.08
.18
.22
.29
.37
.50
.52
.81*
.83
1.10
.97
1.28
1.22*
1.73
1.56
2.02
2.50
2.36
2 .5 2
3.2*8
3.63
I f 2*1
I f 58
2*. 78
5.07
5.50
Total
Wool
Cotton
Silk e
Bayon
29.ll*
30.96
30.22*
30.30
3if38
35.31
39.12
30.92*
33.02*
25.39
29.52
33.23
28.51
29.99
30.58
33.1*9
32.12
32.61
29.22
2 if 37
23.70
27.68
27.12
2lfl*6
29.95
33.07
33.88
27.1*2*
36.2*1
36.86
2*8.13
50.72
2*7.72
2*6.15
1*2.29
9.1
9 .6
7.8
9.0
9.7
89.9
89.5
90.9
89.8
89.0
88.8
88.8
86.0
88.7
86.6
87.1
86.7
83.8
66.9
86.3
37.8
85.9
86.8
83.1
86.5
81.0
86.7
82.2
86.2
80.5
81.3
83.0
81.3
80.0
80.8
80.6
82.0
80.5
78.1
76.1
.9
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.7
3.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
.1
.1
.1
.2
.2
»2
.2
.2
.3
— ±3—
•6
,6
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.5
2 .7
2 .5
3.9
6.0
5.6
_ i4 _
6.9
9 .2
10.1
9 .9
9 ,2
9.0
10.0
11.5
13.0
9 .9
9.8
12.3
9 .5
11.6
10.7
11.1
13.2
10.1
9.9
8.7
9 .2
0.5
10.3
8.8
10.6
6.6
9.3
7.6
10.9
9 .5
8.7
7.9
8.7
8.3
10.0
9.0
9 .5
10.6
10.9
1.6
1.2
1.0
.6
m
m
m
w _
6«u
6 .6
6.7
_
—
%o o f f ic ia l sa les since 191*2.
Sources#
U.S.D.A., "Agricultural S t a t is t ic s , 191*5*» P* ®5*
U.S.D.A., "Agricultural S ta tle tio s , 191*6", p. 88,
- 3k -
COTTON
(in Pounds)
WOOL-
SILK
RAYON
Year
1911 13 15
17 19 21 23
25
27
29 31
33 35 37
39 Li
h3 L5
Figure 2
Per Capita Consumption o f Wool, Cotton, S ilk , and Rayon,
U nited S t a te s , 1911-L5
S o u rces
T able IV , page 53
-
''
t o t a l consumption, increased f a s t e r than, consumption per person*
l£he
growth ,of population numbers %& showi l a table- V # # , fig u re %
t o t a l and per- cap ita, consumption of-wool 'h a te hem h i ghly
.e rra tic . ■
and apparently very B eaaitive to th e general ecoaoMic andp o l it i c a l .,.conditions o f the times*
Baring .World War
per c a p ita consumption Inereaseci ,rapidly*
both t o ta l dM
Part" of th e ■in crease may he
a ttrib u te d , to th e armed forces? demands fo r wool* and th e halanco toh ig h consumer incomes d uring -.the war*
■-
By 1.920* In th e general wIet^dpwnrt in' b u sin e ss a c tiv ity ist*
iaodiately follow ing. World War I* consumption of wool.had decreased
almost to prewar le v e ls * ' Hho so -c a lle d wre a rin g tw enties" produced
-a new high in- t o t a l Consumption o f wool* Per c a p ita consumption a ls o
i
in c re a se d , f a l l in g short: of th e 1918 peak by only »95 pounds*
th e depression of the--early ,19$®f S reduced t o t a l consumption
of wool sharply by 1954*
Bie year 1935 saw an abrupt increase- when
t o t a l wool consumption, rose only to decrease again in th e sh o rt but
sharp depression o f 1958*
th e re a fte r* t o t a l wool consumption r o s e .
to- th e phenomenal h eight o f #.7*9 m illio n pounds in th e World 'War 'l l
year o f 19&1*
t o t a l who I Consumption1,remained a t n e a rly t h i s le v e l
throughout th e World War 11 period*. fen capita, consumption o f WoOl.
during, th is p erio d 1followed c lo s e ly th e -fluctuations in t o ta l
consumption*
'
t o ta l and per c a p ita consumption of cotton from 1911 to 19^5
followed sim ila r p a tte rn s of flu c tu a tio n to those of wools w ith the
exception t h a t wool consumption during, economic- depressions f e l l s l i g h tl y
36
Table V
Estlmted Population, United States, l?ll-19ii5
Year Population
Year Population
(000)
Year Population
(000)
Year Population
(000)
(000)
1911
93,360
1920 106, 1*66
1929
121,770
1938
129,025
1912
95,331
1921
108,51*1
1930
123,077
1939
130,880
1913
97,227
1922
110,051*
1931
12l*,0l*0
191*0 131,970
1911*
99,118
1923
111,950
1932
12)4,81*0
191*1 133,203
1915
100,5U9
1921* 111*,113
1933
125,579
191*2 13k,665
1916
100,966
1925
115,832
1931*
126,371*
191*3 136,1*97
1917
103,1*11*
1926
117,399
1935
127,250
191*1* 133,083
1918
iob.550
1927
119,038
1936
128,053
191*5 139,621
1919
105.063
1928
120,501
1937
128.825
Sources
U. S, Dept, Commerce, Statistical Abstract of Vie United
States, 19li6, p. 8, Washington, D. C,
- 37 -
Population (000)
Year
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
19W
1945
Figure 5
Estim ated P op u lation , U nited S t a te s , 19H-19U5
Source:
Table V, page 36,
*» Z?B. m
more than cotton.Oonsmptiona
Ta explain this, it stay be said that .
.wool is more Ol1 a luxury textile than is cotton*
(Busy during & dOf
presalon people will buy more of the cheaper cotton.clothing and less
of Wool*
fhe Consumption of silk affords an „interesting pattern' of •
•rise and fall*
percent*!
in
From 1911 to 19<29 total consumption increased Stfk,
From.1929 to date,* with the. exception of ,brief increases
1951 and 1955# total, and per .capita silk consumption decreased,
even more rapidly than It had increased prior to 1929 =
fwo major events of recen t yeard are noteworthy -.in considering
s i l k consumption*
One i s th a t nylon would lik e ly have displaced s i l k
efea w ithout the in flu en ce Of World War
,.'Ihe o th er i s th a t during
Wo%#d War I l y th e re were no recorded s a le s ,o f sl!k « J
.
Of th e fo u r t e x t i l e s under Consideration* rayon consumption
was th e most sh arp ly upward*
From
1920 to 19h5, rayon consumption '
in creased s te a d ily m .th b u t a few minor declines th a t were one year
Cr l e s s in duration# What e f f e c t nylon and th e .p e rfe ctio n o f o th er
Synthetics w ill have on rayon consumption remains to be seen# '.
Because t h e r e ■a re so many U npredictable f a c to r s a ffe c tin g th e
consumption o f te x tile s * i t may he f o lly to- venture an opinion as t *
p o ssib le fu tu re tre n d s * . however, a Study of tables, 111 and I f and
fig u re s I and, S in d ic a te s t h a t t o t a l ■consumption o f wool# cotton,, end
" :*jp"
b<= W*- Department of A griculture^
19h6f’, Washington* % . C=, p , Sg=
A g ricu ltu ral S ta tis tic s *
rayon TNlli continue to in crease b u t a t a 'decreasing r a t e , w tile s ilk
consumptions both t o ta l and per c a p ita » w ill be n e g lig ib le ,
f a r c a p ita Consumption o f wool and Cotton w ill 'be Slowly up-=
ward unless, another depression s tr ik e a.d i h a t e ff e c t th e sy n th e tic s»
e th e r then rayon, w ill hate on t e x t i l e consumption- remains to be seen .
P resent developments in nylon m anufacture would seem to in d ic a te
se rio u s com petition to n a tu ra l fib ers, in th e fu tu re ,
lotal.consumption of wool* cotton, silk, and rayon, separately
‘are expressed as'percentages of the. total of the consumption' of the
four textiles together in figure
!he line representing wool in*
didates that regardless of- the amount of the duty on wool, which
varied from no duty in 1913 to 3 k cents after 1930, the percentage
consumption Remained at approximately’the ,same level’ from 1911 to
l9to»^
As -can be seen by a comparison, of tables ill and i % - 'changes
In per Capita consumption of 'these- textiles' are s,q nearly like changes
in their total Consumption that it Would be unnecessarily repetitious
to present a figure for per Capita consumption Similar to figure ho
As can be
Seen by -examining figure If, the percentage'consumption of
wool fluctuated around the SSme level for the entire period 1911*191*5
while the-percentage of rayon consumption■increased at the expense
Cf
silk- -and even more so at the expense of cotton,: ■'Experience, to
date will indicate that wool
w ill be affected less by the" synthetic
.fibers;than will cotton, '
4aa* ta b le g&I, *#&*, # »
-v
;
^-
— I4O —
Percent
100
Year
1911
1915 1920
1925 1930
1935
1940
1945
Figure 4
Wool, Cotton, S ilk , and Rayon Consumption as
a Percent o f Total Consumption o f the Fouq
U nited S t a te s , 1911-1945
Source:
Table I I I , page
,
Ijl -f*
fhe PfoduGtioa o f Wool . ■
The -ralitoie
of wool
production depends on many variable factors,
Among these factors are the number of sheep on farms and ranches* the
weight per fleece* the number Of Sheep S h o m jr the price of
wool 4
and
the all-inclusive term "general business conditions elsewhere11..
Sheep. lumbers;
Occasionally Someone mill remark that the
United States is going out of or going into the sheep business
whichever the ease may he*
Actually* neither is
wholly true* What
appeared to have been an indication that farmers and ranchers were
either going into or out of the sheep business was an expression of
a phase in the eyele of sheep numbers.,
The cycles in sheep numbers
have* on the average* taken, about eighteen years for completion^Table ?l presents the figures for the total number of sheep
on farms and ranches in the United Statee by five year averages from
1866 to I 9 h %
and annually from 1 9 U to
1945» figure f shews in.
graphic form the fluctuations in sheep numbers*
that sheep numbers have fluctuated
considerably
figure _5 Indicates
to
from year
year and
from period to period in irregular ".cycles* but ever the entire period
have fluctuated about a level Cf approximately 46 millions
with
no
indications* past or present* of a permanent increase of decrease from
that level,
.. ..................... mi,,,'*,,,milI
wi,,w*.
ti
.
For a mere detailed description of-cycles-in sheep number#
dnd. in wool production, see Mohat*. H*The Tariff on Wool, tariff
Research Uhromittee^ Sadis.on* Wisconsin#.
" ",1J .
» 4 2 -■
fable VI
A ll Sheeps Numbers on Farms and Ranches in th e United S ta te s <,
Five Tear Averages 1866-1%$» AnhuallT 1911-1945 •
Tear
Number
(OOO)
I
Tear
I Number
(000)
1866-70
45,562
1920
1871-7$
36,641
1916-20
1876-80
41 #542
1921
1881-8$
$1,477
• 1922
1886-90
45,452
1923
1891-95
46,102
1924
1896-00
44,140
1925
47,031
1906-10
Tear
40,743
1931-35
'40,236
•
1936
39,479
I
Number.
' (OOG)
'I
' '53»248
.1.
51,087
1937 ' ','I ; 51,019
I
36,922'
36,803
I
I
I
37,139
I
1938
I
51,210
I
1939
j
51,595
I
1940
52,399
38*543
1936-40
51,4.42
1921-25
37,777
1941
54,283
48,402
1926
40,363
1942
1911
$0*535
1927
42,415
1943
55,775
1912
47*897
1928
45,258
1944
51,769
1913
44,652
' 1929
43,381
1945 .
47,780
43,089
1930
51,565
1941-45
33*268
40,513
1926-30
45,596
1901-05
1914
I
I
1915
I
•
1911-15
45*341
1931
1916
40,010
1932
1917
38*886
1933
53*054
1918
39,664
1934
53*503 ,
a,875
1933
51*808
53,233
.
53*702
I
1919 ■
I
Sources
U 6S eD 0Ac5, r<Agricultural Statistics-, 1940'% pl0. 387$
U eS0DeAos “Agricultural Statistics^ 1946“5 p. 339»,
56,735
M illio n s
35
1866
Year to
1870
1876
to
1880
1886
to
1890
Legend:----= f iv e year averages.
----- annual.
A ll Sheep:
S o u rce:
1896
to
1900
1906
to
1910
1916
to
1920
1936
to
194.0
1941
to
1945
Figure 5
Numbers on Farms and Ranches in the U nited S t a te s .
Annually 1911-19^5
T ab le V I, page i|2
1926
to
1930
Five year Averages I 866 - I 9 I4.5 ,
'*■ ifily"
M might he Gxpeotedj the tpta.1 number o f sheep shorn la the
United States c lo se ly followed the total' number o f sheep on farms and
ranches*
A comparison'of tab le IfIl (numbers shorn) with tab le t t
(to ta l numbers) reveals that the numbers of sheep ' shorn have been*
With few exceptions,, about seven m illion''ieSs than th e ,to ta l number
On farms and ranches* 1
Montana cheep
to
numbers,, starting:'in 1957» increased' from 5,000
5*225,000 in 1911 %ith only minor deviations from the steady in*
crease
in the intervening ye****
AfterlSfil^' numbers, decreased to
m average' of 2 ,6 8 2 ,0 0 0 from 1920 to 1929* increased from 1950 to
5 *555*000 , and dropped.sharply after 19^ 4. to
1914 to an average of
2 »i}.68,OO0 in 19)16«. fable fill thews the estim ated number of stock
sheep on Montana farms and 'ranches from IQ 67 to I9I460
Fleece Weights;
Fleece weights', which ploy ah important p a rt
in determ ining the volume o f 'wool production, are la rg e ly determined
by th e breed, o f sheep and the conditions' under" which i t i s grown«
AWrage fleece, weights in the United S ta te s as Shown, by ta b le ' l l
quadrupled from 1*9 pounds in. 1 8 # to- 7*8 pounds- in 1928». ' From 1928
to 1956j> fleece weights varied & #
7*8 pounds to- 8*1 pounds.* m d s i n #
'
■{
■
,
,
:
■
..
1957 averaged 7*96 pounds per fleece=
_ ; .
Fhis-. great increase in fleece
weights i s doubtless due to improved methods in breeding, feeding#
and management*
TNhile the national average is about' 7=9 pounds per fleece,
there Is Considerable variation within the United .States*
Southern states fleeces average 5*1 pounds*
In the
Ihe western range states.
Table m
S w b ers. of Sheep Shorn in th e United S ta te s $ 1911-19i|.S ■
Year
Year
HS* Shorn
(OOO)
Noy Shorn
(Ooo)
1911
43,631
1929
42,001
1912
40,512
1930
44,549
1913
38,529
1931
46,832 .
1914
36,452
. 1932
45,207
1915
34,758
1933
46,005
1916
34,532
1934
46,421
1917
32,971
1939
44,991 .
1918
35,001
1936
44,623
1919
36,817
1937
44,444
1980
34,621
1938
45,030 ,
1921
33,080
1939
45)428
1922
31,412
1940
46,,645
1923
30,993
1941
48,130
1924
31,790
1942
49,784
198$
33,564
1943
4-8,573'
1926
34,997
1944
44,324.
1927
37,414
1945
40,337
1928
39,795
I
I
Sources; •U . S , ttA g rio u ltu ral S t a t i s t i c s 19h2v3 'p . I tll
tJ.eS .B6Af,, llA g ric u ltn ra l S t a t i s t i c s , 19M ", p« 354'
* IiS ■*»
of
** # # taa%
. PtwfBWt W . Woh**?* ]W8(%p*&gdkdl
»m b»
'■ # # ) . *@#
. '''
iw
im
.
# '
' '% #
SD
- m #
s ,#
4 w
4W .
w #
, '& #
IW&' '-
>*w
. : »3®
3#»
B aW
%m
' ^ w -
IW
4.59!»
'
IW
$w
- W »*f
(W )
W
#6#
%w
I
|
' 3#^ "
f
\
-
- - . ........
TW*
' '
■ $*m
'
' S im
iW '
" .k m
% $#
.&W
'W
'
.
'
"#*W
.
8**^$
SBaAdMbwde
#* &*8#& If* % % ## #*&*&** D W q W Df A $ # ^ W d &
B*tt&#4&09a,
W W * * &4&bGk» #* # *
:%0fd&Pjr
A verage
T e a r
W e ig h ts IR t b * D%&t@a G ta te a * I8& 0*19W
P om W a
l e w
P o m W e
16W
l w 9- '
1933
W
180
S b b
193 b
7 .9
1866
3^2
1939
8#0
1880
b *8
1936
7*9
18%
$ * 2-
1937
8*0
1893
64 b
1938
6*0
1900
6<3
1939
8^
i m
6t 8
191#
8*0
1911
7^ 0
19a
8*1
1917
7^0
19 b
1928
7*8
1913
7 * 6>
190
7^
19b
7*8
1931
W
1#
‘
I 1932'
S o m 1I a e s ?
I
&
.
)
7^
b
8*0
I
e s s X 9h&n$ #4 3 ^ b » E e t e t s
S y,
*%& Tariff on 3@o&4f TeyiBT Baeeardb Goam&ttae* 3&&g*
ttA g r i e i a t m a l S t e t i a M
p . 39*
•
i}.8
average slighMy ever 8 pounia's# witli Heataaa ead Wyoiaiag ’hating the:
highest ekip ;per sheep at $%!' and' 9*5 ponnae ’re.speotiVeiy*' W l e ' S' '"
gives the figures for average fleece weights in the ten' leading states*
Prices
and the Produotioa.Of .Wool .■
'Qf t M many factors affecting the Volume of wool production,
the price received by wool’''growers has had perhaps ho more infXtaenee .
o& wool production' than .any one of ,a number.of other factors such &$
the weather^ the price of beef,, and'the availability sad price
labor* . Wehther 'influences the quality
of
and quantity-of .wool had'thus.,
in: years .Of favorable weather, ,the Wool .clip;' id likely
then during, years
■
o f unfavorable weather!
to be gtehtbt'
When the price’of beef is,
'high,, the wool .grower may reall%#..#$ much. Ph'# r e profit with'%s.P
labor involved per dollar .of .income in cattle
raisin g than in the
shhep businessw; At such times,...sheep uivabhra^end thus'wool produce
tionr^deerease*
.Wring periods' when, labor: ih -sbaree and postly, wool
production decreases because under Such conditions the WtioSf grower
often turns to alternative, enterprises that require less labor than
wool productiono
to
Figure 6 given & graphic comparison of sheep numbers,
the prices of wotii.* beef, M d agricultural labor*.
Table IE and'figure 7 present data tin.prices received by
farmers:for wool, shorn wool produotibn, Md t a r i f f rates from 19X1
to I9h5»
The Sharp fluctuations .in-wool prices show in fig u re.7 .In#
d icate, that the prices received by. .growers for wool have been very
..sensitive to gentiral. economic conditions Md hats not been .influenced •
Average' Fleeae Weights for ten Leading .States3,
W i t e S States^ 1933*3.945
W im T .FSE BIEEW
SiAlS
Arerasti
1953*42
1934*43
Its *
its o
1943.
lb s .
1944
lbs*
1945a
IbS*
. 8*1
7*9
7*6
7*7
7*8
Wyoming
' " 9*4
■ 9*&
9*8
9*8
9*5
Montana
. 9 ,4
8*9 '
9*8 .
9*Q
7*A.
6» 6 -
6,7
6=8
8*9
9»% ^
■$ * 6 .
9*0
9*3-
' 9k3- .
9*7
9*4
- .8*8
7*9. ',
.7*8
B*,!.
fejcas
S a lifo ra iti
: \ .7 4
-Wta4
8*9.
'XdahO'
'9 t 6
#1% .
'
Metr1M e a l#
. 7 .6
7*4
7*8
7*7
W
■.Oregon
. Q*$
9*9 -
8*2
&8
e«7
.6 * 6 !
8*2
8*7
Golwadti •
!
P re lim in ary ,, . . .
.- 8*3 -
,
.
Sotireees WSoWAa3 uAgrloultural S ta tistic s* 1945"*
PB, 3B6.38W
SaSaWA** ttA g rie u ltu ra l S t a t i s t i a t is 1946"*
PB* 352"333»-
- 50 -
Percent
Comparison o f Sheep Numbers w ith the
P rices o f Wool, B eef, and
A g ricu ltu ra l Labor, U nited
S t a te s , 1910- 19U5
( 1910- 1U = 100)
Sources:
U.S.D .A . A g ricu ltu ra l S t a t i s t i c s ,
1927, 19) 7 , 1946.
W & 9 '38
fool Prices Heceived % farmers asd Ba^cMVe a&d Shorn
Wool prodwtion* Halted States, 1 9 l l ~ l W
(Deflated Pyloe 1910*1914 * lOO)
T W per lb .
D efla ted P redudtioa
Phioe
P rioe D efla ted Produetion P r ic e ( B i i . W i )
Year per^lK -
19#
l) ,6 f
1)*4^
2% )
1929
36+2^
18, W
327.8
1912
1^ .1
1 8 ,1
242»)
1930
19*)
12*2
3)2+1
191)
$6*4
1 4 ,1
2)2»?
1931
13+4
9;&
376,3
1914
I? * ?
17 »4
24?*2
1930
S *6
6*9
1919
22*&
m <3
84)*?
1933
26*4
17 . i
374,1
1914
2?*9
2^3
1934
2 1 ,9
1 7 ,0
369*0
' 19%? 4 ? .#
32*3
241*9
193)
1 9 ,3
14*8
19%B 5?t9
33+)
' 8)4*9
19#
26+9
21+2
3)2+9
1#9
m 3
25*4
2)6+0
1937
33*0
24*1
3)7+5
19&9
m 3
25*4
. 2)0+9
m s
19*1
1)+1
1921
16&4
9 ,9
241,*?
1939
22+3
18*0
1922
29*8
18*2
228*4
1940
38*3
30.+6
192)
38&9
83*3
230*2
194% 3).*)
26+9
390*6
1924
34*9
2 2 tl
23842
1942
#*1
- 26+?
392*4
22*8
2)3+8
1943 , 41+6
25*7
384*4
192)
1924
32+)
19+3
269*2
1944
42*4
25*0
192?
30+4
18*4
289*4
194)
41*9
24*1
3928
34*4
21+7
314*8
Soayeee?'
I
'%'gyie h lW A l W U sM d e A
1 1 3 1 :1 1 %
I
351.0
I
361,5
361+2
I
363,7
I
I
'
374*6
347*1
321+0
p* 241,
#
:
i : S
- 52 -
P rice
Production
50 r -
--------- 5 0 0
TT^----- UOO
Year
1911
1915
1920
1925
1950
1955
19U0
19U5
Figure 7
Wool P r ic es Received by Farmers, Shorn Wool
P roduction, and T a r iff Rates on Wool,
U nited S t a te s , 1911-19U5
S ou rces
T ab le X I, page $1
to m y n o tic ea b le exteBt by th e volume o f wool produotioixe. th e' m b#
n o tab le high p ric e p e tio le were W 1918 tuning Worlh ,Wat
through
th e ,!goOdw years- o f th e middle l92Ej?si, th e ^recovery" year's from
1939 be 193% # d during World; Waf i t *
v
fh e more pronounoed periods'
of low prices Were in the recession of 1921* a sharp decline from
1929 bo a record low in 19321 and a Cudden- drop, in the short depression
o f 1937*
• to
1%
_
fiiroughsut 'Wq history of tSiiteS # t # e @ wool tariff. Wool
^rowora and the raaWfeetnrers of wreteSe h a w mutnally euptertei.a
policy of high tariffd
Carded woolen interests have aifiioet consistently
%.
'
opposed a high tariff polity#* 'the combining of offOfte by the grower#
and worsteds to,anufaO:tm*ers is easily tinderstandablOb
toanded and got tariff duties planed ,on raw- Wdoi=.
Ihe growers tie*
f a e doty raised the
- p ric e s o f fo re ig n and domestic' w o o M a n u f a c t u r e r s then demanded %
:
-
duty on Imported wool fabric in the .Same ratio'as the duty to offset
their increased costs On raw wool* ■ Ihus» higher returns went bot h '
to the grower and the manufacturers#
1I M increased host was paid; h f '
the consumer of finished' fabrics^
I
The two opposing View's among manufacturers of woo l .fabric
came about with the rise in popularity of Worsteds between the 106#*$-'
and 1890*s*. Worsted mills used wool low in. shrinkage -and Wastes- whereas
woolen mills, used high*shrinkage and high-waste wools*- The tariff on ■
wool and wool fabric being on a flat -rates thus: discriminated against
the woolen, manufacturers, and favored worsteds# The Smoat^Hawley
Tariff Act Of 1930 made a slight concession .to woolens by creating a
ClaSe- o f 'dutiable wool falling between Carpet wools and Wools finer'
than.b b ’Se 'This intermediate olass, was -dutiable at
per -scoured
pound#
^The Morrill Tatiff Act Of 1861 combined a .specific duty with
ad valorem rated*-, Sxis system- of compensatory duty is still an
integral part-of the tariff policy on wool manufactures*
.F
Sg-*
Bie p.toponOnii.s- of high. wool, tshiffs had. the. same objectives
that eeem typioal .of' Other minority financial Interests#:'
to reserve-
the
entire domestic
market
products,
domestic price of their
for themselves and
they wished
raise
the
la addition to log-rolling with,
others lobbying for higher -direht ,proteetim.*'several sethods to
obtain higher Indirect wool tariffs- were used#
Mbng- them- wore the
provision, of double duties on imports o f -Skirtbd fleeces^, concealed,
protection in compensatory duties^ and & flat rat© -.Cd. valorem- duty
on wool per grease- pound rather-' than on a scoured
rate, duty on grease wool
turers
discriminated
baei s,
against the woolen
$he flat
manufac­
who used high shrinking WOOllj,- and favored worsteds manufac­
turers who used low-shrinking wool=
the Pordney HoOumber Mt. of 1922 changed the wool tariff from
a specific, duty and/or w
duty on scoured wool.
ad valorem duty, on grease wool to a specific
B i s change was favorable to growers, especially
in- low price periods, because the specific duty remained at the same
....
bulk of raw wool imported into the W ited States .has- been.
Skirted in preparation -'for -marketing,'
- ^Compensatory duties levied m imported wool fabrics to pro-tect domestic manufacturers, B e duties were levied on,the -assumptionth a t four pounds-of raw -wool were equal to one pound of finished ,
fabric* la t e r investigation showed, th a t th is rate, was too high,, In
1.922, it-w as provided that.-thb compensatory Vate on .cloth valued a t
. more than 80 cents per sound .-should be -paid upon the wool' Content. Cf
the -cloth,* not upon, the f u ll weight-of the .fabric, , B e compensatory
ra te was also- changed from- four pound's, of ,grease wool, to one pound -of
cloth to lH pounds of scoured wool to one pound of fabric* lB ese
changes, reduced the- mount of cpuooaled. protection in the compensatory
duties*
•
*» 06'
ieVei at all
Wkefoas the former ad valorem duty Outomatl cal Iy
waa lowered whenever wool prioea docliaedi,
o f B tW g Bemm^ fo r P rotection
G enerally th e most Orgeat demanie f o r high -Wool t a r i f f pro.**
te o tio n have come during general economic depressions and in th e •
'recessions which inevitably teem to follow warce
examples have been 4
Some of the notable
'
it. War p f 1812 * * .* *
t a r i f f M t' o f 1816
2» Depression o f 1857» » T a riff Act of 18^2
5» C ivil War 4. $*
v ■* <s. T ariff Aot Of 1881 M errill Tariff Act)
i>i, Panic of 1 8 9 5 <s » = * Tariff Act of 1897
Bv p r l s l s Cf 1907» * * * W l f f A t t of 1909
;
6. World War I and ■;
_
X
Aebeedion o f 1921 ■* A e fiff A b t1Of 1921 (Emergency Abt)'
T a riff Aet Of 1922 (Fordney Metimaber)
Eafly Wool .Dutleb^
,Before 1818 .there 'was little serious interest in the .sheep
and wool industry in the Vnited States*.
JSOSt Of the wool fabric con- ,
turned up to that time was furnished by England*
" '
.
'
'
The WaergO of 1808
■
9See Mohatv' Ih- B, The ,T a r i f f on Wool*.' T a r if f Research $0^"
M itte e iV.Madisoni
pp». 7*29# 'E sith , >%. Av»'
The T a riff on Wool, -Macmillan Oos4, $ W fofk,*
il> pp*. 97*V fffy m S m g 'i 'prWo'.* The T a riff H istory o f t h e 'V n lted'-s ta te s4 S* P«
Putnam end -Spnsp-Eew'W r^ s-i9^ f | ,JVni^eA S ta te s 'statutesT'mf ^'arge®.
56th to 73rd Congress*-- 186o«l95b.P ? tis * 12#%8p..# h lte d 'S ta te s -Eovem*
m e u t'l^ n tin g W ^ I c e ^ ;Washington>, D« Co, 1862-195A=
j
<"57.**
Wr 'of
m t o ff for^.ga.
o f m p p l^ m4. W United
- ###*# *#* foifOWMl to IWMMpt "*qW
taaoag thsm.>;oo,l» " '
'Swlrtg the 'tfef of- ISIS oheep ritistbertc s,nd mol. p^odootioa in=.
*?#&*#& *ad #*9**61 **ol*8 w ill# Tfqgaa t#a*#t&ea$* At the #&& of the
%s*^. lw*pPiwd % & ## Wftlea good# floodw the?-Wttod Statue W#f%et,
fO*oiag the prioo o f wool domi m&- mmin§ mi$- Mills to old^oe- to
aid Wol g*ft*o*# wd awofaotftro*# sa i Othesi domdotia ladft#W#e, the
Worlff AOt o f 1816 #a* #a#**a* %b* AOt gro^ l#) **&## of flftaoa
pepooat @a r w w o l *a& 8$ peroeot oa woloao with th* pwvt#* that
the vooloa# doty ho rW aW to #) pdfoeat oftor throe year#* %h@
■•tariff was aot high oaoogh to he offootiv# i$t wrswatlag the entry
of British woelens # # the. rWuotioa"th' nBOpsroent-on woolens, aova*
took p lo w *
"■■ ’ ■
%io yoo*o ISIS to 1S3S’ fiehe "&"fopmtiw period in she wool*
growls# Ond w ol*w #sfaoW lag lnde6t*&*a of the Waited dtatea,
#e*»
peMSion from foro&gs'oool and ^manhfaetures wee oevero* I t m e anrla#
th is ported thot dome#tie gtoto## cmd m ill .operhSors baomo ■sO$«iouely
pwt0h%loh*mWedd'
■
,.
die- foriff'Aot of ISBlt. rm #d the doty os wool fro®, I f peroent^
to # peraent in 188^* Sb 8f poroost e.fto* IQtf# tad to go peroest
After 1026*
the ynte m pm%®m to Bh percent .
in IQShi, and to # 1/^ poreost
..
'
.At 'that time the wool .
’
.
-wnofaeturisg industry of &glen4 wms in-, the midst of a finswAtl
. oriels*
'fb roll w e Shelr plight there was oonaidor&blg dumping o f
- 58 wool fabMos bn the lmerloon market,whi oh for; the most part*, aeodunts.
for the Increased American import dutieso
,
In 1828 the duties were again raised*;
# e duty on wool
increased to four Cents per pound plus an ad valorem duty of kO
percent,
She ad valorem duty was to he increased to b,5 percent in
1829», and to go percent In
placed at
1$ 50»
Ihe duty
on
woolen fabrics was
percent ad valorem for most classes,
-Ihe crisis in England had passed by 1850
Pnlted States markets ceased#
vivors
!hereafter from
and
dumping on.
1830 to I860 the sur*
among domestic growers ■and1mills began to
prosper?
Ihis same
period saw the peak in wool growing along the Eastern eoast of the
Pnited States* ■ After 1860». the westward migration began and the East
declined in sheep numbers and in wool
production®
. Decidedly protective'' in character was the Tariff ACt of 1838»
but
the
"Compromise
Tariff*
of 1853' provided
for
a gradual rate
reduce
tion until duly I» IBiiS0i1when the rate was to be 20 percent on all
articles, 'The 1332 wool,duty 'Was four Cents per pound plus ho percent:
ad valorem
eight
cents
on fiber costing over Sight cents, per pound,
Fiber costing
per pound and under was admitted free*,.
From 1830
to 1837 domestic and foreign producers and manu*?
faeturers prospered®
Wool, prices rose and* because of .a "great decline
■ ^The Tariff Act
Abominations® The name
of 1823 is Commonly known as the Tariff of
resulted because Of the extremely high duties.
Iri household, m^nufsieture j waolgn m ills g t m jrapidly*
Itt -bhs B aetem lfnlted States' were l a
Woel- grower©
'favored p o sitio n da© to th e .
Stoall EWtoaat o f wool produoed in th e s t i l l ’"ae#' w o # Of th e # i #
Tsrest» ,laigoi’t s fntim the Southern Bemisphere # r a r e la tiv e ly Saallo
, Ihe .c ris is o f 1857 sad th e aeoompEaying decline. In wool
p r is e s wore- resp o n sib le1l a p a rt fo r th e t a r i f f i d t o f 181*2 which, in
i t s e n ti r e t y , was more -.a p ro te c tiv e t a r i f f than previous . t a r i f f s had
beenj however, .subsequent t a r i f f ' measures' 'In IS l^ and 1857 reduced
th e d u ties?
■
;$he period 181*6*1861 being one-of prosperity,' th e re Was
little tariff -agitation in those years, ■ Slghlights of .the .period
were a decline in sheep
numbers'
in' the
Bast, -a movement
df producers
In to the HldrWest,. relatively higher priced In the ISUOifS for sheep
and wool
than for. other farm products, high'land values and an in»
crease' in dairying
along
the Eastern coast* .Between, i s l a n d 1860-
other farm prices rose'higher by comparison than did wool, .'Ihis
accentuated
the- decline- In- Sheep ,numbers in- the Bast and slewed down
the increase in, the- Midw e s t c. High farm prices at this time resulted
from several noteworthy events*.
-railroads* the trimean War*
B o m 'laws
In England* and #
a
Shey
m m t-
She'-development of
famine i n Ireland* the abolition, of the
increase in domestic population,■
She B iv il War brought an in c r e a s e 'In sheep numbers- In the,:
B ast and a d e c lin e in th e Mid^west,
'
'
It was,., however, ;a temporary .
s it u a t io n , and- was r ev ersed soon a f t e r th e War*
■ As money was needed.,to carry on -the QiirLl War »• the Wariff1
Acts .nf 18611 -1862> and 1861). were p rim a rily fo r revenue purposes-^
th e ^ atee on wool were th e same in' th e Aots of 1861 and 1860a hut
ino% a#ed I n 1186ii and again in .the T a riff'A c t o f .1867»,
the ra te s in
th e se a c ts were .more favorable to mahtifadturers: than to growers * even
though both benefited*
the' ,T ariff Atit o f 1861 introduced what was to become a per*
#Wnent fe a tu re Of wool t a r i f f s * - t h a t o f th e compensatory.duty oh
- 1V " -
Wool msttiuf aotures o.
.
■ ' High r a te s .of th e 1884 Act chocked' Wool and woolen im ports
u n t il 1866 when an a n tic ip a tio n o f even higher ra te s brought in a
flood of; imports o f both* . t h is flood' o f imports I n combination w ith
high W41 p riced and an expansion of dom estic production p re c ip ita te d
a crash o f wool p ric e s I n :186?%
At a mooting in few Ifork in- !86% wool growers and menufao*
tiir e r s pledged mutual support o f h ig h er t a r i f f ra te s on. wool", and wool
manufae.thre.e6... P ressure from th e "Combination e ffe cte d the. .passage of
a separate-wool- t a r i f f a c t in 186% ra is in g th e duties- considerably*,
■:
- Between th e years 186f And.' 1894 there: Wore several important
,!
changes i n t h e sheep and wool in d u s try ^ . There was an. expansion of
,fheep in to th e Rocky Mountains and th e Far West* Worsted manufaC*
ta r in g gained in popularity*, th e Southern- Hemisphere became impor­
ta n t in in te rn a tio n a l wool affaire*, and ra ilro a d tra n s p o rta tio n made
g ra in raid b e e f production more p r o f i t a b l e .than sheep end wool in the
Mid*westp
T a riff r a te s on -wool, and woolen goods' were about tlia same
from 186? to 3.891).»,
If there can be any definite breaking point,* it. may be .said
that tip- to ,about
1 8 # , tariff measures on all dutiable BoHmodities» •
as a national policy, were more important as revenue measures than
as protective measures*
From 1 8 # to the present* tariff policies
have been more-frankly protective*, such revenue as they yield being
not a purpose but an incidental result of the policies.,.
Wool .was placed on th e fre e l i s t in 1 8 # fo r the f i r s t tim e
Since 1816,
Wool:manufactures compensatory d u tie s were a lso re*
moved* b u t th e ad valorem duty on woolens remained 4t. 35 percent=
B oubtless, th e wool growers were h u rt by f r e e wool imports* but th e
unfavorable fin a n c ia l condition o f th e wool in d u stry a t th is time
was. la rg e ly th e r e s u lt o f a depression fo ilo w in g .th e panic o f 1893»
Sbtcept in the northern llocky Mountains,: Sheep numbers declined
ra p id ly throughout the .depression and.up to 1896»
High.wool and woolen rates- were restored in ISgy6
of the
In spite
new tariff*, sheep, numbers failed tb increases. Again, the ■
exception was-In the Socky Mountain region where sheep numbers con*'
tinned to increase until, about
1902».
■
■ ■
-.Fer th e f i r s t timo. in many years* domestic wool g ro w e rs- in
1897*. had se rio u s com petition from raw wool im ports,
The- high d u tie s
on woolen manufactures Cut imports of woolen goods sh a rp ly in propor­
tio n to the. amounts of raw wool im ports». ■A# a r e s u lt o f an increasing,
p referen ce.on the p a rt o f Consumers f o r w orsteds,' the woolens
* 62 mmuficturars buffered mother e e W b a # at this time.*
Aisoi, yheap
cotton wa$ vigorously competing with the products of wool* .
The t a r i f f laws were revised again i n ' 190$ but wool rates.
were'1changed l i t t l e *
World War I to.the 1930?$
For a short period of one year^ wool- was again placed on the.
free list in 1913?
The immediate effect was a fall In wool priced
|y the approximate amount of the duty?
Ordinarily* as is' Shown
later in this study, the price Of. wool does not rise or fall to the
full extent of the duty when a wool tariff, is-effected of removedo
T herefore, th e decline seems n o t to have been entirely Caused by the
removal of the duty in 1913?'
Actually, prices had begun to fall
■
‘
before th e .1913'A ct was passed*- Although im ports increased a great_ '■
L"
deal a f te r -th e 1913.Act i t seems p la u sib le th a t they may Mve been .
m erely postponed e n tr ie s sin ce th e high 1969 t a r i f f and■low p ric e s
had shut o ff im ports to a trickle*
The IOngArun e ffe c ts o f th e 1909
and 1913 t a r i f f s were obscured by th e f i r s t Wofld War*- ■
At the
Close of World War Is. the situation in wool was- tin©
of high prices* expanded manufacturing facilities and sheep'numbers,
world surpluses Of wool * and small demand in Cbntinetttal Europe*
High wool prices brought about a consumers* strike in 1919?
The
strike* plus embarassingly large holdings, of wool by the American
and British governments,, led to a crash ef wool prices in
1920»
Thereafter, Sheep- M d Wool prices dropped sharply and many, wool
,growers wore
Immediately 'a elaraor for. hl-gh,,.tariffs. %#/.
hoards
fp-.Wlp; th a :..e i^ a t^ e % '; dohgrees,*;'4n-:
passed what woe
MOW ashthe ’’Snergenoy Wool T a riff Aot” s ' The d u tie s ,of th e a o t were
p ro h ib itiv e a
In. a d d itio n to th e re g u la r r a t e s „ th e law 'req u ired
S k irted flso cee to pay a double duty^
.. ■
S e ^ atea of t h e ' Imergpnqy S r S f f - # # h ig h ly # a tiW a tto ty '
to wool in te r e s t# and s h o rtly th e re was much a g ita tio n f o r th e new
high r a te s to be planed on a permanent b a # l#
The S rd n e y Eedumber
T a riff Act o f 1922 ,aecomplished t h a t purpepe^
% te s were .'plaeed a t
@1 cent's per scoured pound on raw wools a t 45 cents p e r. pound Op wool,
...
.
.
c o n te n t,p lu s §9 p ercen t ad valorem on Wool manufactures*.
■>
The Fordney IcCtonber Act he doubt helped Wool grower# between
I $22 hnd. 1929,4 bu t fa tp re b le Maine's^:.eondltiOhS Sn general also con­
trib u te d to th e p ro sp e rity o f wool■growers, • „
'The, Inoomiug adm inistration o f 1928 had stumped f o r ^t a r i f f
e q u a lity for' a g ric u ltu re " .
-
,
■
.
1
To c arry WUt this.prom ise* th e Smoot«Bawley
-
" 1 . ,'•
■
- ' J'<; -y, ; ' 1
i, *
.
"
' ■
T a r if f Aot' was passed' by,'Congress in 1930* '. Raw wool duty was Increased
from
cents to 3)4 cents per scoured .pound* • Duties on wool mstnuf&o
ta r e s wore- raised, p ro p o rtio n a te ly .
Wool im ports decreased r a p id ly . a f te r 1930 a bu t again i t I s
d i f f i c u l t to say whether th e t a r i f f o r th e depression o f the I 930' s
was responsible*
I t may be sa id more d e fin ite ly th a t th e high d u tie s
did cause an increased spread between Bbfton and. Bondoa 'p rices m i-
■" ,
!»
were probably resp o n sib le fo r th e in cre ase i n SomeStle production
between 1922 a n d l 931«J
As:the ,depression of the l9§Q»s worsened*, the administration
;in power in the Pederel Government f e l t that a revival o f foreign
trade,wa| necessary for economic recovery,,' To bring about a revival
Of trade* the seoiprooal Trade. Agreements. Act was made law in 19g%,
The Aot has been renewed 'periodically and is in affect at present*
'
The-Aot in effect lowered the duty on many Commodities* b u t did n o t
■
‘
lower the d u tie s on th e top graded o f wool*
-
,
The duty On wools- fin e r
than liitis has remained a t 3k cen ts per pound since 1930*
S u ties on
c a rp e t Wools and the interm ediate c la ss between c arp et and wools
f in e r th an W e has been reduced by tra d e agreements.
The S uited
S ta te s n e ith e r produces n o r consumes much of e ith e r of the c la sses
on which th e duty has been lowered,
Becerxt ,Wool Programs8
1# 1943 wool growers:*- facing a. Slump. In wool p ric e s , demanded
p ro te c tio n a g ain st t h e i r ris in g c o sts of production#, r is in g le v e l of
^See P a rt I f fo r a. d iscu ssio n o f p ric e d iffe re n tia ls '
.S1
“
' **“
" ru^
" " 194?
Ifey .22, 1947s #ay'&3* ^947'k So^h'Gongress#. l e t Session, Senate Document
Wrt- AA. AFWsb. OrxTKrtiAee,-- I es-h Rctisi-i n-* . " lBlnbi IISFn«1. A**.. >vP TraIJr? 'I!:
feiM ognouM B ill s . 1L98. Wadhingtoh-s; Se-Ch. Z dune .e7#.'"194f»;’ :f*s#p,A»
Production and, marketing Adminie tra tio n * Press Beleaseai.. ' August It*
- l94eg dune. l94o; l a y I* 1946* dune 22, 194% Wovembera t , 1945, Washing"
P*Q*m 9*S*D,A, War Pood A dm inistration* Sress^jBeleases,, A nril 15*.
#- 60 -*»•
investm ent c o stsj and fen a n tic ip a te d drop in A ray and Havy purchases»
A purchases program was formulated, whereby th e Commodity Credit. Cor*
po r a t i on bought a ll. domestic wool,, thus assu rin g growers of a fix ed
market p ric e .
The 19h5 program was extended from.year' to year up
to A pril 10#. 19h7»
Congress i s now considering renewing the purchase ■
program fo r another year=^ l e g is la tio n known as. th e wHuy American
Aot*'' Of 1933 required th e Aray and Havy to use domestic products wherever
p o ssib le 'in a r t i c l e s bought by them so domestic wool was Used in fu l­
f i l l i n g Aray and Havy contracts# even though th e domestic wool p ric e
was about 26 cents p er pound higher than th e p ric e of imported wools*
A fter TW Day* wool,m ills re tu rn e d .to manufacturing f o r the
c iv ilia n tra d e and tu rn ed to the cheaper foreign wools#
This turn of
events forced th e 0*6*6*. to reduce, i t s sto c k p iles o f wool*
In HoveWbef*
I9k$i> 0*0» C0 wool was sold a t a seven cents, per pound reduction# and ■
was reduced another 1*5 Cents in February 19W* ■ This placed domestic
wool on a, comparable, p ric e b a sis w ith duty paid foreig n wool* However#
since production co sts remained high purchases continued to be made
On th e o rig in a l le v e l and by duly 1# 1947*
0*0* wool holdings
amounted to /approximately J4SO m illio n pounds*
^This b i l l a t th e tim e of w ritin g was aw aiting th e sig n atu re
Cf P re sid e n t Trumsn who. had .publicly s ta te d 'h is in te n tio n to sign it*
S ien th e b i l l becomes law# the" 0*0*0, w i l l resume purchase on August
1% 1947# and. continue u n t il Heoember 31# .19^5* This b i l l req u ires
th e 0.0*0. to purchase only th e wools on which i t i s Considered
n e ce ssa ry to. b o ls te r p r ic e s , P c ra c r pregrams •required th e purchase
o f v i r tu a ll y -all wool produced#
<=>, 6 6
In e jjlts of th e
purchase plan* ■eheep 'numbers and wool -
production declined s te a d ily a f t e r l^i^o
' .-fh© reasons most often
given fo r th e d e clin e a re.h ig h production co sts and s c a r c itie s
labor* supplies* and equipments: & reason l e s s o fte n heard i s th a t
c attle - production, was more p r o f ita b le ?4 th le s s work and le s s r i s k ■
involved,, ,
'
., B rices re c e iv e d . for wool by growers averaged e ig h t cents
,per pound above th e world p ric e p in s duty during CUGbS*/ operations ' •
'In ,the y ears 19^3*4945* averaging i|l*96 cen ts per pound*
The duty
on,, wooI .had l i t t l e o r no e f f e c t ,on wool, p rice s during th e war^
-
In
f u l f i l ling-, war c o n tra c ts i t wap req u ired by law t h a t domestic, -wool
bti'-uaed In so fa r as- su p p lies warranted* . th e G6GdO,* and
set
th e p ric e s for wool# ,
At th e end of. Yforld S a r II* wool .growers were, s t i l l clamoring
fo r protection* ^In dune C f 1A7* Congress sen t th e "Wool Act of 19-ii.7”
to th e P re sid e n t fo r approval*
o f supporting ,wool .p ric e s a t the
The a c t, o ste n sib ly fo r th e purpose
le v e l u n til December 31s 19W*
included a ,s e c tio n th a t would have i n e f f e c t ra is e d th e import d u tie s
on wool through import, feed and im port quotas, on wool*
In h is veto
message* P resid en t Truman, said..* " The enactment o f a law providing fo r
..... ....
ta riff*
^Gompare th is w ith th e n a tio n a l Preparedness argument fo r
(Appendix A* p« 99*). " ■ '
'
'
■
a d d itio n al b a rrie rs to th e im portation o f wool * *,
t r a g i 0: M lstakeefi--
would be a
1.
. fa b le MZ -Shbws th e d u tie s on Wool and-woolen m anufactures
-'fow 'tw ^earW -1861'to
.-
68
Table XII
Duties on Wool and Woolen Cloth,
United S ta tes, I 86I - I 9I4.7
Tear o f
Act
Duty on Wool
(Per Pound)
1861
1864
186?
1885
6/
12/
10/
1390
3/
1 1 /-
1894
Free
1897
1 1 /-
1909
1915
1921
1922
1950*
11/
Free
15/°
31/d
3 4 /d
Duties on Woolen Cloth
S p ecific Como. lb .
Prot. Ad Valorem %
12/
24/
50/
Costing up to 80/
per lb . - 35/
Costing over 00/
ner lb . - 35^
Costing up to 30/
per lb . - 33/
Costing 30-40/
per lb . - 38#/
Costing over 40/
per lb . - 44 /
No Comp. Duty
Costing up to 4 0 /
per lb . - 33/
Costing 40-70/
per lb . - 44 /
Costing over 70/
per lb . * 44/
Same as 1897
No Comp. Dutv
45/
45/
50/
25
4o
35
35
40
40
40
50
Costing
per lb .
Costing
per lb .
up to 50/
- 40
over 50/
- 50
50
50
55
Same as 1897
35b
35b
50b
55b
s In both of these acts the duty on oomblng wool (Class II) was
12/ Instead o f 11.
This rate was levied on moat representative c la s se s.
0The rate per scoured lb . was U5/« The double duty provision
covering a ll skirted or improved wool made the e ffe c tiv e rate rea lly 30/
instead o f 15/ on a grease b a sis.
^Beginning In 1922 the rate levied was on a scoured b asis.
eE ffeotive duty from 1950-19U7*
*■ 6 9 t
Pairt #
,
DOWlE COSTS AID DOLLAE BMBHTS
Supply jmd Deiaaad
AAytbiUg shout h i a lengthy and comprehensive study o f the
faqtoUE a ffe c tin g th e supply of and demand' fo r w o l =Would very pro#
hably he in accu rate $ th ere fo re ,, only a few b r ie f comments on the
subject are. in order a t t h is time*
For purpose o f .i l l u s t r a t i o n ,, i t w ill be assumed th a t th e supply
Of and demand,' fo r .wool has an 'c la s tl-c ity o f unity*
Dhder t h i s assump# ;
Monjl according te th e economic theory of supply end demand^ the
sequence of events follow ing t h e ' enactment o f a wool duty should
proceed as follow s:^
••
.
I*
Duty i s effected*.
2«
Domestic p ric e s o f wool,, r i s e , assuming th a t
world p ric e s do n e t f a l l * .
5* Sigher p ric e s stim u late domestic: production
o f Wool*
Ipr Increased' wool production^ accompanied by
larger amounts of iamb and mutton On the,
marketjt follows*
5». Increased' lamb, and mutton supplies, force a
decrease in meat prices*
^See Moffat>- J* E» * et.#al».» Economic Principles, and Problems*
Thos* %* Drcwell Company* Hew fork#
317-357»
<<*
* 70 - .
6o
Increased revenue ftma %
yqo1 i s p a r tia lly
Pr to ta lly O ffset by the decreased lamb and
mutton prices=
7».
Inereased prices decrease the demand for
wool=
So Wool, p ric e s f a l l to a p o in t somewhere between
,t h e ir o rig in a l le v e l and th e duty IeveX0
9»
f a l l in wool' prices- tends to decrease the '
supply of wool* and lamb' and mutton*
'' ■
10* A new equilibrium i s reached at a point o f
le s s supply and smaller demand#' but at a
higher price for wool and a lower price for
lamb and mutton than at the former equilibrium=
11»
•
The r e su lt i s net gain to the domestic sheep
industry because the price o f wool has risen
more# proportionately, than the''price o f lamb
and mutton has fallen=
. ,
Actually-'wool supply and demand I s . pr obably ln elasti c | i f so#--,
a u n it change in price .w ill r esu lt in le s s than a u n it change in
supply# and a un it change in price w i l l resu lt in le s s than a u n it
change in demand*5 Bvideuce of in e la s t ic it y in the supply and demand
for wool was illu s tr a te d ea rlier in Part I l by ta b les i l l and S i and
fig u res %and. f from which i t can be seen that u n it changes in the
amounts o f wool produced and consumed did, not result.from a unit
change in, price,
ShUS the course of supply and demand* as lis te d
above# was aptdWly followed o n ly in a modified degree*. 1
%’e e Smith* M* A** She Sariff, on Wool# Macmillan Co*# Bew York*
1926# Chapter IZ# pp, 210-32»
.
It
m fo rtu n a te t h a t a Oomplete p ic tu re o f eapply of and
demand fop wool i s n o t a v a ila b le because conclusion^ o n .th e f a l l
e f f e c t 'o f th e wool duty afe lh accn rate ,without such .knowledge^
Domestic .and, ,foreign' Competition
. % e United StateS^ In 1world w ool, tra d e >. I s in th e p ecu liar
p o sitio n of being, no t only a heavy producing, bu t a ls o a la rg e Con*
'suming and im porting nation#- This means' th a t any n a tio n th a t pro*
duces %nd exports wool I s , in some' degree*■ a com petitor Of United
■States "wool growers * ■
'
■•Since- th e United S ta te s im ports huge Q uantities of wool
■every years; t h e t a r i f f on- wool i s obviously a. measure designed to
r a is e domestic to o l p ric e Se ^ ' The wool t a r i f f o rd in a rily brings about
a r e la tiv e ly high domestic p rice "fo r wool and a decreased volume of
■im ports,"' Both o f th ese results are to .th e fin a n c ia l b e n e fit of domes*
t i c growers,. I t appears, th en , th at. United S ta te s growers- Cannot or
, do 's o t produce- a t as low 4 cost- a s 'do. foreig n prodUoerso, Otherwise
' th e re would lik e ly be enough wool produced dom estically a t a low
enough c o st so th a t wool im ports would be in s ig n ific a n t and a wool
ta r iff would be unnecessary.
■ P resent Wool T a riff;& ItS -Beneflts and Costs
Having discussed - t a r i f f th eo ries,, ^ th e h is to ry Cf United
■States WOdl ts#.t'ff% fo rc l# . wool;,produetieh,
«#d ^amSbtle. production.
. . . .
% #e ta b le XVr for th e volume o f wool im ports by source*
% se Appendix A,
a&ti consumption, the qneationa remaining to. be SaswereS are*' W at
. - ■ . . . .
..
.
'
’■ ■'.
■
-
.Es the e e st of the wool t a r i f f in doiiare tdleonsumers MS the b en efit
in SoEiars- to -producer a>; and Whioh exceeds; the other?
Beirerai methods o f t a r i f f in vestigation hate .been devised*^
fhe one chosen fo r th is study i s to determine’ the C ffectivM e1M Cf
the wool, t a r i f f h y'comparing the difference# in p r ice s fop Iih e .
graies of'wool i-n Boston and in BcndeM-''
hendcn i n th e world m arket,
m e p ric e s quoted th e re r e f le c t
th e Conditions o f supply and demand in world wool end thus are- sa id
to he - world, market”- prices#
Boston i s th e most Im pcrtant1Im erican
wool market*. - -me -p ric e s quoted th e re -fo r fo re ig n wools* In bond
-enrduty*, a re -generally -equal to th e London "world p ric e s ” p lu s tra n s ­
p ortation*
m e -p ric e s quoted i n Boston for domestic wool are-' roughly
Comparahie to the world p r i # le ss mar&t- preparatiehal difference**
p lu s th e amount by which the- duty i s e ffe c tiv e * ^
f d show th a t th e W ite d States- wool-duty l s u o t fu lly ; '
e ff e c tiv e in raisin g , wool p ric e s I s one purpose of t h i s section*
a n d 'is shewn i n ; t h e follow ing pages#- A fte r having determined the
e ffe c tiv e n e s s 'C f th e duty ip r a is in g wool prices- i t # 1 1 be shorn how
much th e wool t a r i f f co sts consumers and how much it- b e n e fits
p ro d u cers* ,
5See MohaM %
- '
op oit* Wupter t i l e pp-# 127- 137,.
6
-See' "skirted fleece" in Grlessary,' and page 1.6«
'
6
*
One &f th e f i r s t d i f f i c u l t i e s in such a Aathod o f investiga*
tio n I s the d iffe re n c e s to he found in systems o f wool grading*
fhe' .Bnglish system 'df spinning- -founts. does n o t coincide exactly
with, th e o f f i c i a l Wnited -Btates fleece- g n e ie s* . Sewwe^: t h e - 1 #
-# e n e a rly enough th e sm e f o r 'the "purpose, here*
fa h le $$%Z shows
the approxim ate.equivalents o f th e Various .systems o f wool grading*
• fo s a t is f y consumer demands* th e United S ta te s each year im­
ports la rg e q u a n titie s o f raw wool. ... Ip h le
' giwihg’fig u re s for■. ,
•. , . '
...
" - d - ^
Wnited S ta te d im ports and production o f wool f r o m . t o l ^ ^ l n d l - '
cates, t h a t ewer 2/3 p f the- t o t a l im ports were d u tiab le# and, th a t
;.
,■ - •
.
/ .
,' /,I . ' '
d u tia b le imports -of wool were equal, t o over -oneehalf ,of -domestie,
production*. BmoUnts o f d u tia b le im ports by source a re given, ip
ta b le M o
Only wools f in e r than l&H- a re considered because’ only a
sm all p o rtio n o f t o t a l d u tia b le wool consumed in th e E n ited S ta te s
f a l l s ip th e grades o f W b o r below*
I f th e t o t a l wool production*- imports #. ,and consumption in
th e United States'*, only the f i r s t , fo u r grades of th e o ffic ia l, % S4
-Standard W ading System w ill -be used, here to compute p r ic e ’d iffe re n t
t i e ! Sa benefits-, and costs# because 98 percent o f W4 S» production
and 9Qo6 percent of consumption (fo reig n and, dom estic) f a l l s w ithin
thoge fo u r -gradeg*T As to imports*, th e t a r i f f i n im portant only on
th e f i r s t "four grades*
^Bee Ud B* Tariff, pommis.sion, ttE* 8.* Wools* Production by
.!Regions and by Wades#
,l ^ p a r i m o f P ro d u c tio n w ith '
Reported Consumption* and with Amy Wool Requirements” # Washington,
D4C,* March l o r 19I150
Sable m i l
IgaivaleB ts e i Srates & g W m t
I.
. :
S erritor^% g p lsr,
,
'■1
,v
' ■'
Ra
Ba? S oaiem
-^boiMsg
-Ssail Seourers
SejBbiBg
#»** # * #
H as
'% #
SpitosiBg
Soaatse.
S aiv erso l
% ne
1/& meo&
.# o # X '
Axm
A Sage?
3 /^ M eM
. m a tw .
#006
Ixer 32% B&eaS
:
ly% MWE
Mw l / k SleoS-
gaaaam
BM #
BBagD?
• Sotmmu -aM.
sw a
Sqit** Bee# 8*
& # » , %93&»,. &* # k -
5W
' 56**
*#** &8*#
M e a l ferns*.
A u strsH s &
Wm- ZmlmM
M m tm
Coaefeaek
, ,Ialifem S
%&?$
W arse
@Super ’
WsrseW** # #
Sotsweld.
.-or
M noola .
SaQge #de& aa& # # i* da&* %l@e &$@ad* Ioa**.
'.- ' ' ' : - : -''' - ........ ... ' ' '
75
Table XIV
United States Imports and Production o f Wool, 1921*.I9W1
Tear
Beginning
July
1921*
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1931
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
19W
191*1
19l*2
19l*3
191*1*
Average
Dutiable
(1000 lb s .)
11*5.265
221*.515
135,062"
111*.187~
ill*.198~
119.635
!*2,576
27.093"
12,226
56,393
27. 1*66
101.209
181.413
1*2.551*
65.969
161.661
1*72,803 ~
561.273
1,291*. 518"
703.697*
551.1*09*
21*5.1*87
Imports
Pree
(1000 lb s .)
123.266
105.686
137.039
135.589
152.926
115.826
95.070
71.570
51*.678
120,600
147*178
188,318
70.583
129,694
11*7.784
177.175
I 32.408
35.765
35.681
93.355
112.738
Total
(1000 lb s .)
268.531
330.201
272.101
249.776
267.124
235.461
137.745
101.663
66,904
176.993
122,788
247.387
369.731
113.137
195.663
309.445
61*9.978
693.681
1.330.283
739.378
64U.764
358.225
Production
(1000 lb s .)
282.005
300.003
318.861 ~
339.504
366.720
382.295
414.029
442.401
418,096
438.352
427.360
427.531
419.063
423.654
425.680
428.216
436.564
456.368 "
4L9.073
449.578
418.094
403,021
Sourcee« U.S.D.A. , "Agricultural S t a t is t ic s , 191*6", pp.
55U and 1*148.
U.S.D.A., "Agricultural S t a t is t ic s , 19l*2", pp,
1*31 and 5I4B.
"includes free of duty as an act o f international courtesy
to the B ritish Government, 1*1*9,11*5,000 pounds in 19l*2| 56,37l*,000
pounds in 191*31 and 5, 561,000 pounds in 19W* held In bond.
Table XV
United States Imports o f Wools Finer than IjO's by Source Compared with Total Imports,
Domestic Production, and Total Available for Consumption
in the United S ta tes, 192li-19Wt
Tear
Argen­
tina
(000)
Urugu*y
(000)
1921*
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
193u
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
191*0
191*1
191*2
191*3
19w
22,889
26.51*8
1*0,022
13,969
11*. 747
12.974
2,252
289
3
3.578
1.113
5.271
13.498
3.925
4.011
29.778
146.195
99.11*2
116.319
123.161
74,518
7,710
20,100
36,608
7.175
21,1*03
13.090
4.696
606
282
3.890
2.282
14.263
23.490
4.720
6.686
28.457
96.076
1*4.823
63.759
102.759
11*0,564
U. of Se
Africa
(000)
Austra­
lia
(000)
4.566
2.913
925
2.715
1.172
149
899
172
2.781
4.726
758
807
32.457
24.226
62.508
130.013
38,176
27,021
34.286
38.857
64.091
27.507
23.842
20.601
24.889
13.125
2,528
11,861
7.008
23.147
73.139
10.968
19.165
28.162
141.375
277.432
862.265
327,097
195,026
Others
(000)
Total*
Imports
(000)
50,938
115.823
56.932
142.437
220.695
77,974
99.656
46.439
101,886
38,891
77.330
29.740
45.287
10.835
22.341
7.149
7,692
4.730
40.306
20.078
7.O6O
17.635
68.196
22,734
24.338
139.191
29,072
5.293
39.740
9.071
15.837
134.691
435.332
27.460
510.042
26.137
68.876 1.241.232
61,046
652.239
71,009
508,138
Domestic
Production
(000)
282.005
300.003
318.861
339.504
366.720
382.295
414.029
442.401
418.096
438.352
429.360
427.531
419.063
423,654
425.680
428.216
436.564
456.368
459.073
449.578
418,094
Total Available
for Consumption
(000)
397.828
442.440"
539.556
439,160
!*68,606
459.625"
459.316
464.742
425.788
478.658
446,995"
495.727
558.254"
452,726
465.423"
562.907
871.896
966.410
1.700.305
1,101,817
926,228
aInoludes only the fin e wools fa llin g in the f i r s t four grades of the United States
Standard Grading System.
Source*
U.S.D.A. Agricultural S t a t is t ic s , 191*6, pp. $06-09; 19l*l, p. 511*1 19)6, p. ) l ) ;
U.S.D.A. Yearbook o f Agriculture, 1927 pp. 1123-21*.
E ssential to th i# analysis i s a consideration of premitims paid
for colonial- over domestio wool*
B lw eas American fle e c e s ore s o l i
M they a # upon removal from the sheep, colon ial wool# are nearly
a ll' skirted before being placed on the market* # e d» 8«, far i f f Gomm ission has found that th is market preparatiorial difference amounts=
to about pight cents per pound tin find WoOlSj= Six cents per pound
on 'half-blood vmols., -and five, cents, per pound on three-eigh th s, and
q u artefv b lo o d 'WcolS'*'
'
■$h@ tra n s p o rta tio n fa c to r in th e Ecstonrbondon.'Wool pripfd if f e r d u tia le was im portant previous to 19 S5 and amounted to about,
three, cents, p er scoured pound on wool purchased i n hondon and shipped
to America,
sin c e %$B% most o f o u r purchases h a m -Pome d ire c t from
th e producing, country#^
Gtimpar a t i # prices; and p ric e d if f e r e n tia ls a # given in ta b le
%9I for fin e wdol^ in table XMCK for half-blood wool; in tabic ZVfH
for- thretiw eight# b leed Wtiljh -and in-- t a b le HZ' fo r quarter^blcod w ool,
f o r th e period 192k t o ' 1939^®
fa b le M summarises the' preceding tables- Z fl to M t by showing,
th e average p ric e d if f e r e n tia ls in favor Cf domestic wools over
=*p,'».1,. =;>VlW
wlwI*-
8See U.* Sj. T a r if f Commission, % ; S* Stock-Pile. Wools1’,- 'War
Changes in Industry S e rie s , Report Mo., -5, Gd Sb .Government ..printing
e ific e ',' W a s h l h g t d h , •
%ee Ziiohat, -B,
o p , o i t * , p-s 89«
'10
■O perations o f- the london Auction suspended a f t e r 1939*
Table XVI
Pine !tools*
Sources*
Comparative Prices and Price D iffe r e n tia ls, Boston
and London Markets, Averages, 192U-1959
U, S, Tariff Commission, "Wool Prices," Report No, 120, Washington, D,C,, 1937.
O.S.D.A., B.A.E,, "The Wool Situation", easnlngton, D.C., 19U7»_P» 8 ,
% .s l Stock-Pile Wool," sSar Chanres in Industry S eries. Renort Mo, 3. Washington,
D*C*# May, 19i*U» P« 12,
s In bond, ex-duty.
^Prices in column 2 and ) , subtracted from those in column I* to get columns 5 and 6
resp ectively.
eBased on a deduction o f 8/ per pound from the basic duty (311 in the Act o f 1922, and 5 V in
the Act o f 1930) to allow for price e ffe c t on differences in market preparation. For 1930 an adjust­
ment o f .5^ was made to allow for the higher duty after June 17. More than 80% o f 1930 imports
entered a t the lower rate.
Table XVII
Half-blood Wools, Comparative P rices, and Price D ifferen tia ls,
Boston and London Markets, Averages, 192U-1939
Price
D ifferen tia ls
Duty Less
Excess of
Price o f Colonial Wools
Preparation
London Domestic
Domestic
for Market
P rices,
Over
6o/6U, e
Differentials®
Boston
Good
Boston
Colonial
(maximum
Australian
Medium l / 2 Blood
Prices in :13
theoretical
So1Se
Fleeces Territory Boston London effectiven ess)
Tear
I
~T~
3
5
“ IT"
7
Z l per pound scoured basis)
$.160
$.107
$.250
$1.191Lh $1,300
1925
1.02k ~
1.021
1250
1.255
.231
.228
.966
.861
1.039
.173
.172
.250
.889
.136
.863
.110
____ 1227___
.250
.999
1928
•925
1.112
.924
.188
.187
.250
. 7I1I
.699
.976
.237
.279
.250
.220
.719
.268
.499
.L sl
.255
. 337
.573
.236
.178
.395
.PRO
e d- ILi
.176
.170
.280
•LSD
• f
.620
.213
.1(03
.280
•217
.802
_____ ±560___
.262
.280
.2L3
•Loo
.251
.2iil
.280 ~
_____ I m ___
1936-39 _____ _______
.550
.280
.239
• 007
.761
.202
.20?
.260
Avge l?gU-3?
Aver. IW i- 46
.8 6 5 "
• 865
1.067
.192
.192
.251"
.661
•L36
.280
AVge 1931-39
.217
.225
Sources!
Amount by Which
Excess of
Domestic Prices
Fell Short o f
Duty in Comparison
o f Prices o f1
Boston- BostonBoston London
” 8~
9
1.090
.019
.077
.I lk
.062
.013
.035
-IOP
.110
.063
.030
.027
.OPP
.078
Iiko
.063
-.029
-.013
.OWI
.101I
.067
.0;
,0' I
.o k i
.0; '----.057
.O1 5-----.052
.0' 5
.063
.055
U.S. Tariff Commission, "Wool Prices", Report No, 120. Washington, D.C., 1937,
p» 7# UeSeDeA*, B.AeEe, The Wool Situation , Washington, DeCe, I
# P* 8,
U.S, Tariff Commission, "UeS. Stock-Pile Wool", War Changes in I n d u s t r y S e r i e s .
Report No,3, Washington, D.C., May, 19bht p. 12.
aIn bond, ex-duty,
bPrices in column 2 and 3, subtracted from those in column U to get columns 5 and 6
resp ectively.
cBased on a deduction o f 8 / pe
ier pound from the basic duty ( 31/ in the Act o f 1922, and 3I4/
in the Act o f 1930) to allow for pr:
.pric
Lee e ffe c t on differences in market preparation. Fbr 1930 an
adjustment of ,5/ was made to allow for the higher duty after June 17. More than 80% o f 1930
imports entered at the lower rate.
3
Table m i l
Three-elghthe-blood Woolet Comparative Prices end Price D iffer en tia ls,
Boston and London Markets, Averages, 1924-1959
Tear
I
Price
D ifferen tia ls
Duty Less
DtHWStio
Excess of
Preparation
Domestic
P rices,
for Market
Boston
Over
D lfferen tia le0
3/8 Blood
Colonial
(maximum
Territory
Prices Ins^
theoretical
Combine Boston London e ffe ctiv e n e ss)
4
5
6
____ , 7
(Per pound s
>aeie)
11.003
»1.118
1.204
$.260 '
1.115
____$.914____
1.090 _ t 235_ .224
.855
.866
.260
.674
.692
.229
.2 4 ?
.260
.221
.674
.138
.260
.795
.247
.225
1.042
«2£pO
.271
.260
.265
*197
.167
• 220
.290
.493
.273
.406
.290
.154
.227
1290
.5 /9
eU98
.254
.290
.290
—>264
_____4 4 1 _____ ____ *321— ____
. 22£
.706
.276
.678
.430
.290
.559
.786 — b 2 2 3 — .227
.563
.276 ~
.236
*261
.215
.9 4 7
.TH
*7%
.390
.290
.209
7355^
.241
• 599
Price of Colonial Wools
Boston
Average
of
Australia
London
and
Ne* Zealand
Average
56'a
56's*
2
3
_
_ iiS__
____ 1233____
1934
1935
1936-39
At e . 1926-39
At e . 1924-30
Avg. 1951-39
Sources*
Jas
U*S# T ariff Commission,
pe 7# UeSeDeAe, BeAeBe,
UeSe T ariff Commission,
Report Ho, 3. Washington
►
M
_____1230____
1931
i
I
1924
1925
1926 ~
Amount by Which
Excess of
Domeetio Prices
Fell Short of
Duty in Comparison
o f Prices of*
BostonBostonBoston
London
8
9
$.056
.025
.013
.039
.013
-.011
.068
.123
.136
.065
.036
.066
.062
.051
.025
.081
$.165
. 0%
.031
*12?
.035
-.0 6 9
-.001
.OTO
.116
• Olfl
•622
.016
.047
.046
IoB—
Wool Prices", Report No. 120. Washington, D.C., 1937,
The Wool Situation", Washington, D.C., 1947, P« 8,
UeSe Stock-Pile Wool", War Changes in Industry S eries,
De Ce, May, 1944, Pe 12e
s In bond, ex-duty.
Prices in column 2 and 3, subtracted from those in column 4 to get columns 5 and 6
resp ectively.
Based on a deduction o f 8/ per pound from the basic duty (31f in the Aet o f 1922, and 34^ in
th«
o f 1930) to s ilo * for price e ffe c t on differences in market preparation. Por 1930 an adIustment o f . 5 / *as made to s ilo * for the higher duty after June 17. More than 80% o f 1930 imports J
entered a t the lower rate.
Tftbl 0 U X
Quarter-blood Woolei Comparative Prices and Price D ifferen tia l* ,
Boston end London Markets, Averages, 19214-1939
Domestic
P rices,
Boston
l/U Blood
Territory
Combing
Price
D ifferen tia ls
Bateess of
Domestic
Over
Colonial
Prices In ib
Duty Less
Preparation
for Market
D ifferentials*
(
th eoretical
effectiveness)
Boston
Per pound scoured basis)
260
250
Amount by Which
Exeess o f
Domestic Prices
Fell Short of
Duty in Comparison
o f Prices of:
BostonBostonBoston
London
8
$«020
-.OOk
.010
.009
.015
■000
.2
I r
.2c
iE
*.120
-.0 5 2
■ .002
-.050
.028
.1
.0
.0
. 02/
.000
.079
Souroesi
B.S. T ariff Commission,
p. 7, tJ.S.D.A., B.A.&.,
U.S. T ariff Commission,
Seport No. 5. Washington
Wool Prices*, Benort No. 120. Washington, D.C., 1937*
The Wool Situation^, Wasnington, D.C., 1947* P* 8 ,
U.S. Stoek-Pile Wool", War Changes in Industry Teries.
D.C., May, 1944» p. 12.
eIn bond, ex-duty.
bPrioes in column 2 and 3» subtracted from those in column 4 to get columns 5 end 6
resp ectively.
0Based on a deduction of 8/ per pound from the basic duty (31/ in the Act o f 1922, and 34/ in
the Aot o f 1930) to allow for price e ffe c t on differences in market preparation. For 1930 an adjustante e l "^t%e*l*we* fco^ low for fcha higher duty a fter June I?. More than 00% o f 1930 imports
i
00
H
I
82
Table XX
Average Prioe D ifferen tia ls end Import Parity D eficiencies
Based on Annual Average Prices for Selected Periods,
United S ta tes, 1921^1939
D ifferen tia l in Favor o f Domestic
Wools over Corresponding Colonial
Wools (Boston and London Average)
Fine*
Half-blood®
Three-eiehthe blood*
Quarter blood*
Simple Average, Four Grades
Weighted Average, Four Grades
1921*-30
(cents)
1931-39
( cents)
1921*-39
(cents)
lit,!*
19.2
22.6
23.6
20.0
18.6
20.3
22.1
22.5
22.8
21.9
21.5
17.1
20,5
22.5
23.2
20.8
19.9
3.7
5.2
3.5
2.5
It. 9
5.9
5.7
5.9
6 .5
6.2
6.1
6 .0
7.3
5.5
It. 9
lt.2
5.5
6.0
Import Parity D eficien cies for
Domestic Wools®
Fine
Half-blood
Three-eighths blood
Quarter Blood
Simple Average, Pbur Grades
Weighted Average, Four Grades
SColximns 5 and 6, table XVI, averaged.
**Columns 5 end 6, table XVII, averaged.
0Columns 5 end 6 , table XVIII, averaged,
*Columns 5 end 6, table XIX, averaged.
eArrived at by subtracting the d iffe r e n tia l in favor of
domestic wools (upper part o f table XX) for the respective grades and
periods from the average duty le s s preparations! difference (column 7*
tables XXVI to XXIX in clu sive) for the respective grades sad periods.
corresponding colonial wools in' Boston and 1« Loilcton0 ' AlaO Shovto
in
are hlie 'd eficien cies between the average duty le s s market
preparatioiial differences and'the d iffe r e n tia l in favor of domestio
wools fo r the periods 192h"19$0i 193W 9,. and 192^59«11
These
differences are herein called "import p arity d e fic ie n c ie s"^
-Sn
the period, 192lp»39*: the wool duty'raised, the Udttoa p r ic e s 'o f American
wool fo r the four graded*, aver&ged together* 20»8 # & .# above lik e
Colonial wools la, Beetoa and i& Iioadoa<r lliis was1' 79 percent o f 26*^
coats* which was the average amount necessary to real ice" import parity
prided*
Ihe difference o f 5»5 dents hetween'import parity and the
amount by which the price of wool was raised i s approximately the ■
effect, o f Other factors a ffectin g wool prices*
This allows for an
average o f 6»h'cents fo r preparationai differencee ^
■During th e period 19$6»19hO» t o ta l domestic consumption "Cf
th e fo u r'g ra d e s Of wool under con sid eratio n here c o n sisted o f h5=D
percent fin e wool,, 1 5»3 percent half-blood wool* 23« 2 percent threes eighths
'
•
/
^ I n 193D th e duty was raised- from: 31 cents to 3h Cents*
^ l h e .duty, minus preparational difference- i s im port parity"?
P a r ity i s used i n 'the sense th a t i t m'eans equality*, Thus, th e import
p a r ity d e fic ie n c ie s a re th e amount by which th e r is e in domestic
wool prices- f e l l sh o rt o f being equal to the maximum th e o re tic a l
e ffe c tiv e n e ss of the. duty less,, preparational. differences?
y,%rri,yed. a t by. S ubtraotlngi .26$3 dents': (import
,ISflit1 cents, (average ac tu al'd u ty 'Id v ie ^
Moo5 wool* and 1<So5 peroeni;
blood wdol.^^ Asomlng th a t
consumption # f th e various grades, o f wool-.did no t change s ig n ific a n tly
in. r e la tiv e proportions* t h r
percentage . consumption figures;
t r i l l be need' h erein as heights, fon the e n ti r e period, covered s % w
th e d if f e r e n tia ls ' on "these.wools were, weighted In accordance w ith
th e s e percentages# th e average d if f e r e n tia l thus obtained was %%$
■.neats-per scoured pound o r 7*$ cents, p er grease pound*^
I n order to determine th e e ffe c ts ' of. the, t a r i f f more accurately*
I t w ill he Oomputed fo r the period
when th e ' t a r i f f Was- .S'
cents and se p ara tely f o r the •period 1931-39 when the t a r i f f was. $k cents*
The weighted average p ric e d i f f e r e n t i a l In favor of'dom estic
wools over corresponding colon ial wools in ...Boston and In London fo r
1984«193Q and fd r 1931*39 was 18.6 and 21*3 cents* re s p e c tiv e ly .
A'
OOmparlsen o f these amounts w ith th e maximum th e o re tic a l effective­
ness o f th e d u tie s fo r th e Wo periods in d ic a te s th a t th e 31 cent
duty from 192I& to 1930.'was. '75*9 percent, e ffe c tiv e i n 'r a i s i n g the p ric e
Of wool In th e Whited S tates* .^ " Por th e period 1931 to 1939* under
1
•
■ . ..
■
'-'-'ii.
. in,,
.. .
.
• "'I. ■:
:
-
..
1^See XJflS, T a riff Oommission^ .“United S ta te s Wools"* Washington*
D*0.* March IO3 IOi3S6 ta b le TI* p» 17«
e stim a te s grease wool a t I3O percent of''clean wool*
4
'
"
-
^ S i 3*5 cents f o r '196^1930 and S ? .5 'tents'; f o r 1931*39« A rrived
•at by adding th e weighted- import, p a rity ,.defioiehdiee. to ..'the'-weighted
d if f e r e n tia ls In fav o r o f Uomestiewoola, ,over corresponding colonial
Wools* (Boston * London averages) ,See t able
the 3k cent duty* the tariff* was 78«2 percent e ffe c tiv e j,n raisin g
wool pMeeSo'
Bomestie wool production between 192k and 1950 averaged
3 h 3 t 3 k 5 fQO0
pounds
American wool growers th u s .received
M emnuo! b e n e fit of approxim ately 1^
137*000 from th e duty in th e
form o f h ig h er p ric e s f o r t h e i r wbolo^® For the period 1931 to
1939» th e benefits to sheep producers Wn th e annual average.product
tio n o f h28*039igQ0 pounds were approxim ately l3^»971»QO° o ^
A fte r m in cre ase i n th e, wool t a r i f f and the. in cre ase in the
domestic wool price- th a t follows#- th e re w ill be a lapse o f years
before adjustm ents in sheep numbers# mutton marketed# end wool pro**
duped w ill work them selves out#
E a p itic a i evidence as t o th e number
-Cf years- req u ired fo r such adjustm ents i s n e t available#
I t seems
reasonable- to assume t h a t i f one allow s a la p s e Of fo u r years# such
^ f t o m t a b l e a m , p t T9*
IS
' P ric es fo r domestic wool a t Boston were ra is e d as a r e s u lt
o f th e Wool t a r i f f by 18,6 Cents p e r scoured pound during, -‘th e 1period
1921^1930# Ib is r a is e on a grease b a sis was l& percent o f 18*6 cents
o r Jdh cents* . % k. cents, times 3W*345*ooq pounds minus 9 percent in
in c re ased carrying charges passed back' to the producer by wool handlers
i d lower " a t th e ranch" prices, equaled
137*153* 50«
2l^P rioes f o r domestic wool a t JBeston were ra ise d m a r e s u lt
Cf .th e wool ' t a r i f f by 81*5 c en ts p e r scoured pound during the period
19,3^39* This r a is e on a grease b a s is was ip percent o f 21,5 cents
o f 8»6 c e n ts # . -8*6 cents tim es
pounds ‘minus $ percent
carry in g charges passed 'back to th e producer' by wool handlers In lower
" a t th e ranch9 p ric e s equaled' #3^*970 *802« 6bo
W & f f n&ll .<$** &# wWw&'*&&%. $w*9* %&#* W ,# y
-# 3 il *»%&*& 'W*** .
.**W» tb * *M#ae# tb&$ # m * ra& i a
##&@&% # f W W w m * W W » IRBdL * a #4@a&
dkW w # && '
W &W # s f t w *8»* &a4P@M#e $%' # » %@al'
&a %i#% #a& Agai* i # $939
fo r # »
IWswsb o ^ f r e A
la, a&Ob #&*#* a & e# %#*# ;lape#
bo *#*%. #w *8#98#' bfodbt #&P # # , M fW I %06f@9»' A*
* ##%**'
W
**& w w # w # # m w W # '# 'W W swBsdbgwpagr *&
#gB $l
IbOLm ig h t g f aWitsMA w 0 & g # ^ ea4 $ s l i g h t .
A bw W ' XtBSMlGdk IaqreaBA I* Bf&#* #a&# iW i m t W
s*o#WpSRp$M% t o -IBtW*.#1
-ipawKtow&t IUgazykdSSy* s# & #&o&# #*e% pMAWlmg*
# a ##%'# *# # » 4#*#W4'&A W
' #mrag@
TBBSAwacb * 6 m t # 8 m W * W Txa-IBb** *
# * & *# W year# #
$ r la a a ' ))#& #@ alW
t&i*
* # w ##8*- # '
in on ##&*#90 am raga A w aal le W a a # $a re#
Jm ? m pQr # # t o gWpROA # r # g %lm period
# # # # # & to # #
#»* pe*&@&
W r ygaro eiftor- tho-oagoW w t
;
'
OdP #&'; 1930 'W # % AhWW a. f^ r# o r:. $ ao re# o ' && stpawsal m srogo ahoop
*& W
W
m
A
,
W W m W W # .W
-% grow ya oo*M*W # . . W ' $ w lo * l f lW g *
Bob th e l##W B o -lB W t W markota*' # ? % # # » *#d@& - W dloorowo la
''•" •• ■•’W o # * PA&K''# 4 W * W W 3&a@dL<Kl-999SW4M%%gbr
*#W W L #% .
,
jW
W
W
l'I’Vwii»
^
.
-
/ .
■ - ,’
^
. -
-
'
-
-
;' . :,
I,
-
-
-
'*
.
'"@0 W LHW P9*&&3 tlmoo ''*937 g#kty.'P@P w a d d o f l a t # $*&a8
m inm $g8
peuada t W a
@ #ts p e r pm ad SoS aW price*
87
Table XXI
Mxmbere of Sheep and Lambs on Farms and Ranches, Sheep and Lambs
Marketed, Actual and Deflated Average Prices Beoelved
by Farmers, United States, 1917-1959
No. of Sheep
Tear
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
192U~
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Avg. 1917-25
Avg. 1926-29
Avg. 1934-39
Sources:
and Lambs
on Farms
(OOO)
38,886
39,664
41,875
40,743
39.479
36.922 ~
56.803
4o|363
42.415
48.381
51.565
53,235
53.902
53.054
53,503
51.808
51.087
51.019
51.210
51.595
38,895
44,104
51.704
Sheep and Average Prices Prices in
Lambs
Received by
Terms of
Marketed
Farmers
1910-1914
(Mil. lb s.)
(I per lb .)
Dollars
473
“ 483“
603
532
626
535
571
589
599
643
502
523
545
650
688
682
673
624
701
855
852
897
872
558
553
800
.115
.123
.113
.090
.062
.081
.086
.091
.098
.094
.093
.099
.097
.068
.046
.034
.036
.044
.053
.055
.059
.066
.053
.095
.096
.055
.078
.071
.057
.045
.028
.049
.041
.054
.058
.056
.056
.059
. o4b
.043
.033
.027
.030
.034
.041
.043
.044
.052
.043
.055
.057
.043
U.S.D.A. Agricultural S t a t is t ic s , 1936, p. 2)6;
19^0, pp. 387-89; 1946, p. 339; U, S. Department
of Commerce, S ta tis tic a l Abstract of the United
S ta tes, 19i46, p, 6ijl4.| U.S.D.A. Yearbook of
Agriculture, 1927, p. h5Ul 1928, p. 9k1»
& 08 »■
Werage emual, inereaee in returns from mutton sold -of #3,710*000
during # e period 193^39 compared to the period 1917- 25«,
'lhose data Wsmte no thange In the demand for mutton as between the
ShWtol' 'periods which shomd th e m eet'reasonable .assumption i s the
--absence- o f - data to the contrary-> Po'f th e period 3.930-33" during which
the tr a n sitio n 'from one t a r i f f '.'IeWl to th e higher IeW i was working
-its e lf 'out* i t i s assumed that t h e change in prices fo r and quantities
4 i mutton marketed and hence in b en efits received b y producers wts
uniform. ffW W at' W
Cohaequentiy^ the Werage annual1'benefit
from mutton sold, for these k years 'it Msuiaed t o haw been i / 2 : o f
the additional b e n e fit received'from the higher' t a r i f f over 'the lower
plhs the b en efit received from th e lower o f #2*260,0#«, '
"
BecauGe o f th e wool t a r i f f i f has beon thdwn t h a t WOoi -prices
ro se fee©' fa b le
" # ' take''advantage o f "the wool pfi-oe rise* -sheep*-
men in creased 'the numbers -of t h e i r sheep*:
preceding- f ig h fe t show
th e in c re a s e s and decreases in th e' amounts of -mutton and iambs m arketed,
; '
I. :
' -tod the. accompanying decreases and in c re ases’ in th e p riced Of mutton
and
' % b o th -'Iqri1OdS oonsidered the"-sheep men*S Income from
'button' 'Md i# tb lncrehsedi ' P ot pufpoWS' o f'-th is study*, it'la-asehmed*- ■
■. "
'
'
"
'
'
,
-
.
.
though not proven herein, th a t th is IhOrease in' income WM larg e ly
ah in d ir e c t r e s u lt o f th e t a r i f f Oh. imported wool*- • Dbtbhminatlon- o f
m illio n pounds- times-'
pounds -twos '-*#53 oqnfsb -
-'
-cents; 'minus 55® million' ••■■■
.
i 89 *
the v a lid ity of th is assumption is m important problem for
subsequent study*
W y lik e ly , a# imported #ool ,is passed from Importers' to
various handler's, and manufacturers,' # e b a s lt oo$t of th e duty paid
plus a reasonable carrying Oharge fo r in te re s t on increased invest*'
Iaents6 insurance,, handling costs, etc** i s passed on ,and ultim ately
paid by the consumer* Assuming th is to be true# the added cost each
year to the consumers wool b i l l fo r th e ' period !92 W 9 # .on imported
wool was' m annual .average' o f
sim ilarly,, fo r the
period 1931*39# under the 3 k cent duty, the added cost each year to
consumers o f imported wool was eti annual average of ,$26,562,22$*^
Whose two ,figures # e n weighted by 6*8 and. 9*2 years' respectively,
give approximately i3 3 6.# 1 7 i# 'a s the.
average .cost to consumers
of imported wool through .the. sikteentyear' period, 192^'396:
fable ..-SXil -summarises the Costs .and" benefits # outlinedabove,?- I t may be noted, that table -XXIl does' not account for the.
fact th at a, part of the cost to consumers was revenue to the govern*
ment in the. form of- duties collected*, At least p art'o f.th e■revenue
oolleoted was, doubtless returned, to.- consume# through ,government
*
22
;/
IgoeIibitOQO1,average;:annua$. imports times' 31'cents per pound
duty plue a owrying- charge' of 5 percent for items such as interest
on increased investments, insurance, and taxeu*. W percent of 193#
imports -charged, a t 3|.vt^#s<r
percent a t 3b-cents*.
^ l k M k t t O Q Q '^average;annual imports, times.- 3 k bents p e r pound
duty plus .a c a r r y i n g ' c h a r g e -o f ' g percent 'for it e m s such as interest'"
on -increased- investm ent' insurance, and, taxes*.
• 90
Table XXII
Average Annual Benefit and Ooet of the Tariff
on Bool* United States, 19<?lrl9)9
B enefit to Producers from Increased Domestic
Wool P r ic e s, Annual Average*. . . . . . . .
.
$30,366,550
B en efit to Producers from Increased Bevenue
from Mutton and Lambelf. * . .
* . . * . . * .
2.467.143
Bet B en efit to Producers, Annual Average . .
. * , .
$32,833,693
Cost to Consumers from the g lee In Domestic
Wool P r ic e s, Annual Average*. . . . . . . . .
.
$33,563,028
Coet to Consumers from the T ariff on Imports Plus
Carrying Charges, Annual Average* . . . . . .
.
33.517.737
Total Average Annual Cost to Consumers
.
$67.060.765
eAverage annual benefits to producers from Increased domestic
wool prices for the p» rlod 1924-1929 o f 124,137*000 weighted by 6.8
years and the benefit for the period 1951-1939 of $34,971,000 weighted
by 9.2 years, (See p. 85.)
^Average annual benefits to producers from Increased revenue
from mutton and lamb marketed for the period 1926-1929 of $831,000
weighted by 4 yearsi the benefit for the period 1930-1935 of
$2,260,000 weighted by 4 years; and the benefit for the period 1934-1939
of $3,710,000 weighted by 6 years. (See pp. 86 and 88,)
0The Increase In price of domestically produced wool resulting
from the ta r iff (disregarding the 3 percent deduction assumed to have
been paesed back to consumers)plus an additional 5 percent In Increased
handler’s carrying charges assumed to have been passed forward to con­
sumers multiplied by the volume of domestic wool marketed. The cost
to consumers thus derived for the period 1924-1930 wae weighted by 6.8
years and that for the period 1931-1939 ”ee weighted by 9.2 years to
get the average annual cost for the entire 16 year period.
^See p. 89*
91-
spending and Ifttus th e n e t cost of the;wool duty to consumers, was
a d tu a lly l e # than i s shown in ta b le XKlI*
On th e h a s !s ■tif a v ailab le
■IpfOjpstatiWi . i t i b 'im b e stih le to- ;say .-how Bineh:. of. the, -cost- to- oonsweTS
was returned*
The netunn was in d in e o t and .nffocted f& sl incomes^ to
he ShfSj ■but in this. SeOtiom only cash b e n e fits and c o sts are com*
sidenodo
f
I t i s probable th a t incid en ce of th e taw c o lle c te d in th e
of Vbhe t a r i f f on wool i s . less: # y o g % s# i# t h # 1# .that: c o llec ted
through th e income tax,.-
.
The t o t a l cost o f the. t a r i f f on raw .wool,, divided, equally
.
among t h e .weijage .population during .the. I92l\~39 period ,amounted; to.
$ki3 cents
the annual average ^er cn#t& C b stg ^ . iFon the average
fam ily o f hoi. .persons, th is Cost ojapunted to
ennwaily per. family=
I I
The annual b e n e fit to producers# When divided among .erp'ragih
sheep numbers fo r th e period.. I93lt*.§9 .amounted, to 68 «5 cen ts p er head
■
/
. # l4 a ^ p®?->%$$.§■ $£
/
'
;■
Tb .sheep' men. the wool t a r i f f .was ,highly, important*. Of the ■
aW usl average income from wool#, sheep.#, and-Iambs fo r th e perio.d,19,^ je3%.
i5 » l p ercen t re s u lte d from wool.t a r i f f benefit#^' 1 To th e r e s t o f th e
ij.
,
•"
vv •
§07^9®'.; hverhg# popuiation-».. -See-^ahlh %
36» '
. -2^ ie e 1y r * .
. departm ent' o f Commerce# 'g t a t i s t i c a l i h s t r a # , of
t h• e .I-I;,'f n ite
d
.
states#..
19Wv
P* h%'
"'
oh - :':Trr,u;r.. ;:J_iy/-;r.'[r.ir,T .nrrrr
■ ^ S e e ta b le VI, p% I#* f o r sheep numbers*
Sheep numbers
(1921^39 average.
jnphsl",
b en efit to producers divided by annual WefhgS1
income from-W bla hheepv i^nd l # b s t , , .
*
*
n a tio n th e Obst o f th e mool t a r i f f w e in s ig n ific a n t and. esiounted to
Xeee than
Of I 'percent Of th e 'average .n atio n al InOome fo r th e
period- 1 9sy°39p^
fah le
.giveh % comparison of w o l income^ -
• sheep and Xamh income5 wool* SMOp* % d Xamh income^ farm incomes:
•and n a tio n a l income»
, I n th e w estern range stated*, where th e re i d a r e la tiv e ly
he:#y .oohcentretion o f sheep w d r e la tiv e ly , l i g h t population density*
i
.
th e wool t a r i f f i t b e n e fic ia l by s ta te s had for the-'.region a t a
whole*
'S e Opposite I s tru e in s t a t e s o f la rg e population*
To
I l l u s t r a t e th is , point* Montana # d Massachusetts: are compared In- t h i s
regard''in- ta b le I g l f *
Thus i t ban be .said that-'people. X iy ip g fn
s t a te s with- few sheep paid, th e b e n e f i t to people liv in g ,.in s ta te s with*
*
-
'
•
\
many sheep*. EvOn in s ta te s o f heavy wool production* th e b e n e fits
received w ere*.-# to speak* 'CloPfSidGd"*
& th e case Of Montana* th e
.annual cost was d is trib u te d among th e e n tir e population* .while th e ■
b e n e fits w ere•d is trib u te d d ir e c tly only to sheep mem*
■ ^A nnual post divided by annual average, n a tio n a l income*
k
<
• .1
93
Table XXIII
Inoome from Wool; from Sheep and Lamba; from Wool, Sheep,
and Lambs; net Farm Income; and National
Income, United S ta tes, 1921+-19)9
Year
1921+
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
___ 1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
Total
Average
Income
from
Wool
(Mil. $)
87
100
92
88
HU
99
69
51
30
77
81
70
95
IlU
81
1.317
82
Source;
Income from
Sheep
and Lambs
(Mil. I)
Inoome from
Wool, Sheep
and Lambs
(Mil. $)
180
207
205
197
221
22U
161
130
93
IOU
131
152
165
186
157
172
2,685
168
267
307
297
285
335
323
230
181
123
181
212
222
260
300
226
253
U.002
250
Farm
Income
(M il. $)
National
Income
(Mil. $)
12.623
70.557
75,026
13.567
79.658
13.20U
77.608
13.251
13.550
80.559
13.832
83.326
68,858
11.393
8,380
5U.U79
6.U11
39.963
U2.322
7,055
8,2+86
U9.U55
9.595
55.719
10.6U3
6U.92U
11.265
71.513
10.071
6U.200
10.5U7
70.829
173.86U 1.0U8.996
65.562
10,867
U. S. Department of Commerce, S ta tis tic a l Abstract of
the United S ta tes, 19l|6, pp. 270,62l+-26,
fa b le XXIV
Average Smual- B etibfits and Gosts- o f the Wool Duty
G ohtrastlng M assaehusetts and Montana,. 192U-1939
M assachusetts
Item
M S i sOOO
312*000
10*000
3*303*000
Average population^
Average numbers o f sheep- -.
P er c a p ita c o st o f t a r i f f bn
wool, n a tio n a l average■
#
B en efit per head o f sheep,
n a tio n a l average
Annual b e n e fit
Annual.Cost
■ ■.
.i m
$
\!& 3
^ 3
.683
»683
6*830
2*233*919
m
4 & ,)o i,h 6 3
Met B en efit
Montana
,
29h*306.
$1*9^,610
^Sourness G^S'* Department o f Gommerce, S t a t l s t l q a l A bstract
'■ o f the ,United "States * Washington, DisG9, 1 A 6 , page 9l 1936,. page 9;
1932, page 7 e
bsourcesi D0Sfi. Department o f A g ricu ltu re, yearbook o f A grir
c u ltu r e j 1927* Washington, D9O ,, page.10221 9*3, Department o f Agric u ltu r e . A gricultural, S t a ti s t i c s s Washington, D9-Ofi4 1936, ,page 231).
...............................
■* 95 *
• ■M W W AND COHGLUSIGNS '
/
■
,
■■■
The h istory of wool t a r if f s ind icates that wool growers and.
manufacturers \of w o o lfa b r ic s haire been.a strong influence in the
making of t a r i f f legislation*
'' Wool: production hie-been d eclin in g in importance in. the-, '
Northern Hemisphere w hile grovJing in' th e Southern Hemisphere,
Comparative co sts of production haire. h o t Wen' th e basis for •
wool t a r i f f legislation®
Ihe "p rep aratio n for' market"' p ric e d if f e r e n tia l i'S a p o te n tia l
source of higher domestic p rices. . As ’i t ’now W i S ts# ' th e t a r i f f pro*
te o fs domestic producers from th e n e c e ssity to adjust, t h e i r production
p a tte rn to include s k irtin g end grading of fleeces.# and changing t h e i r
herding methods to compete w ith more e f f i c i e n t .producers, elsewhere*
Th#. a d d itio n a l Cost in d o lla rs caused by- the. wool t a r i f f to
U nited Statps,, wool consumers i s high when i t i s considered t h a t the
wool in d u stry c o n trib u te s very l i t t l e to th e n a tio n a l income* Gn th e
o th er hand.#! only a very minor percentage,--of th e n a tio n al income I s
spent i n paying fo r the increased Cpst*..
the increased p ric e o f wool caused by th e t a r i f f i s an added
source o f revenue to th e western sta te s# and a s ig n ific a n t b e n e fit
to producers# but i t id ah added co st to o th er s ta te s whose wool production i s small# and to the consuming pu b lic i s a l l states®
.
96
The question of wool t a r i f f s I s one of n a tio n a l policy*
every fam ily in th e S a lte d SteteP pay
Should
out of i t s Snoomb every
y ear to Snorease the income o f th e wool industry?
The #2,25 cost o f
aid in g th e wool in d u stry may he sm all,; hu t i f a wool t a r i f f i s jU sti*
f ia b le , then so arp' t a r i f f s on every o th er commodity .imported i n
d ir e c t or in d ir e c t com petition w ith a domestic product» . One must
e ith e r condemn o r approve Pf th e p r in c ip le s ,o f t a r i f f s , ra th e r than .
t h a t o f a t a r i f f , on a Single commodity o r group of commodities.
If
w holesale approval i s accepted, then i t must also he accepted th a t
th e m ajo rity o f th e people w ill have to pay bach and every m inority
in te r e s t th a t i s p ro te c te d ,
i f tts ^ i^ f.p ro te c tio n i s acceptable f o r in d iv id u a l in d u s tr ie s ,
- v -;1'-'
,
,,
■
th e only j u s t if i c a t io n f o r ,p ro te c tin g one in d u stry and. n o t' another i s
to say th a t th e in d u stry pro tected is ' e s s e n tia l in case of- war.
If ■
such an industry i s e s s e n tia l, than a policy of stockpiling, would he ‘
'i:
,•
- v
. . ' V
"... .
' '
a cheaper method o f m aintaining a supply than -a continuous'-.tariff -. p o lic y .
Should a sto c k p ilin g ra th e r than' a t a r i f f p o lic y h e Carried
- .. ' ;.
,,r ' '
■■.
■■ ■'■■
■
'
■
'
'
,
■out, i t is. u n lik e ly th a t a l l domestic'wool, ,production would cease,
■‘
■.' -■ ■ :. - 'V. s'"f.i'. , -■;". if "V. ' •' ■,
i
I n h long run adjustm ent a- nucleus o f e f f ic ie n t producers, would remain
in business=
Their p r o f its would lik e ly he, a'S, high or higher than in
a lte rn a tiv e , employment because w ith &. t a r i f f reduction many Bhpep, men
would change to other e n te rp rise s .,and sheep , numbers., would, decline=
Along w ith th e t a r i f f reduction, wool p ric e s no doubt would f a l l , h u t
th e decrease In sheep numbers. Should, be g re a t enough to boost Iatnb
and mutton p ric e s enough to, o f f s e t at. l e a s t p a rt of. th e less, on wool
to those ghoop pi-odueers *ho sta y to husioess^
Gheapooed costs
re s u ltin g from g re a te r O ffteienetes. ..and reductions In c a p ita l w in e s
'■
.Of b a s is resourdes w ill fu rth e r b e n e fit th e n e t income of t h e sheep'
men. #10 s ta y in the business^
;
Without a Ttool t a r i f f and .M thout increased e f f ie ie n e ia r i n
domest i e production# th e immediate' effect:, on -wool producers -would be
to plaOe them in a f a r iee e favorable fin a n c ia l p o sitio n then- they
h a te been and are#
She study has been handicapped throughout by lim ite d informal
' tio n on various to p ics#
S p e c ific a lly # th e most se rio u s lim ita tio n s
WOrOlI
1#
Posts* fhere was no a v a il able. Source of infor4'
mation on th e c o sts o f producing wool in fo re ig n
countries# Such d a ta would have been u sefu l in
Comparing: th e e ffic ie n c y of domestic and foreign
producers'# The inform ation t h a t was a v a ila b le
on dom estic c o s ts w as,lim ited in scope and was'
- so c o n f l i c t i n g : a s t o b e alm ost: v a lu e le s s #
&* Mp#atlng,*' W a t happens, to Wool and th e p ric e ■
f o r ' ' a f t e r leaving th e producer is;* a s f a r 1
. as p u b lic inform ation i s concerned# almost a ,
■complete mystery*- In the words, o f one w rite r1#:
u » ,fo Walker*' tfThere i s no such ’th in g a s a
wool markets8
Io
Synthetics*' ■ highly im portant' t o th e fu tu re o f
th e wool in d u stry W ill be the. use o f sy n th e tic
fib e rs# U nfortunately# l i t t l e Is, known about
production* consumption* oosts*. and develop#^ .
meat In t h i s industry*
he. Supply and ,,Bemaads Time was th e c h i e f Iim ita^
lilon'*in% bW #sin'g t h i s to p ic* Although an •
extremely complicated subject# th e supply o f
and, ,demand f o r wool could be and. should, be
studied in order to fo^xulate. *n informed public,
policy#,
Swi 'benefits a#,
Ho attempt Tfra# made, to answer ■
'We^quOeMoHT^lB^the b e n e fit to wool growers
O ffset by. an increase In their' cram, costs by
hairing a t a r i f f on commodities win,oh the wool'
■ grower buys?w H n til t h i s question i s answered, by
means, o f an exhaustive study o f the. e ff e c ts of
t a r i f f s on a ll imports.^, the e ffe c ts o f any and
a l l t a r i f f s on th e real, income o f producers and.
consumers cannot"be stated # ■
■■■
*>■ 99
|
i
-
'
1B tethdr to m aintain or to a b o lish p ro te c tiv e t a r i f f a and o th er
a r t i f i c i a l b a rr ie rs to in te rn a tio n a l tra d e i s a tim e honored y e t yey*
t i h m t question*
th e p ro te c tiv e t a r i f f m # n atio n al policy- i s s t i l l
being advocated by many: busine Ssmeni farmer s» and p o litic ia n a- and
t h e i r c o n stitu en ts* ■l o s t eonepiououely opposed to t a r i f f b a rrie rs
'
' '
.
•
_
■
• •
■
"
.
a re p ro fessio n al economists and oth er persons, who more, o fte n then.
not do not hate a. financial in te re st in a band' of sheep* or n fie ld
of. sugar beets.* or a.
ste e l
f h e argum ents
mill* or
some
other protected
in d u s tr y *
f o r and a g a i n s t p r o t e c t i v e t a r i f f s seem to b e
l
centered on about ten d iffe re n t these#*-
■
■
They are th a t tariffsw
I* 'Protect ^infant* industries*.
2*. Protect the home market for domestic producers*
uJ*i
<i
,iiil| .
'•***!? woriw^mir.iwiiii.*in)|»i
I
" ' # # Contemperary w ritin g # on/-'tariffs-in clu d e under Various
headings th e ten eases listed.*- M aterial-'for th is se c tio n was based
m t SilsW drthi P*<
In te rn a tio n a l Sopnoml'cs, Chapters M v %, Vli
end h i * pp* 30 % to
fork* 1938 a
Q#uai%l$ p*
and-Blodgett* #*.%** Current,,^conomin Brobiems*
Chapter 1 |* p p *. S S to 386» l a r p e r > fe^er% :".seW ;
I9h7f
& n sm p tie n ' in: Our
- c h a p t e r Pp^ i% . to
!# * m #P#w #3n^eF
^drki ' ’1938s Meade* f *
mi
Bitch* 6*.
An Introduction, to So,SnOmlc M aly slS and -Policyi--Part Vfl
Chapter ?*. pp*. '366 W ^% * "' %'fdrd'''%'nimer^i^r P r e # * '
Ino*.*
Mmr fork* 1938| I o f f at*, d# B1m - Christenson.*, 0**. $,»# e t .
Economic
P rin c ip le s and 'Problems* P a rt if* Chapter 28» pp*
mmaas- t » 6 r # e l i :# :* & # fork* I 9 k k
"* 100 «
3»
Pjpqte# M gh domestic wages from cheap Poreiga
lab o r eoiapetition»
It-=. .P ro tect th e M ftw ivm standard o f living*
Se Are responsible fo r s high le v e l o f employment,
6,
P ro te c t vested In te re sts*
7# Are # instrum ent o f n a tio n a l preparedness*;
B* P ro te c t a g ain st dumping,:
/ 9»
Allow f o r domestic economic s ta b ility *
10* ' Can' be le v ie d s c i e n t i f i c a l l y ,
•
■
■
.
.
..,
■
•
l a t h e order haMed> each oat© i t -discussed below b o th 'p ro 'an d
OOn*
. . .
..
•
■ i .
DEfeSf Kteod f o r proteoting. ihpbnt industries^ |h . om.-oM the o ld est
and stro n g e st arguments fo r tariffs:*- • In d u strie s newly -founded in a
young country .a#'-'for' ahd g et a t a r i f f or t a r i f f s to put them on &
more equal b a s is w ith •.s im ila r fo reig n in d u s tr ie s t h a t have-acquired,
advantages because o f an e a r l ie r S ta r t and years Of O iperiencee On
Such a basis* a p ro to p tiv c t a r i f f 1could scarcely be denied*
- %ere''arey. however* -two p o in ts w h ich ■s w i e h t i y w e # # ' t h a - '
v a lid ity o f ■t h i s argum ent*
Sne-1Ss t h a t i t - i s -impossible* w ithout
subjecting.them to Competition* t o determ ine which in d u s tr ie s ;are capable
of. growing to "the p o in t o f b ein g ablfwSuatMhih©* ■ Iha-O therr la- that"
* -■
■
.
' ,
. .
i
.
'
1,
1
OVen a f t e r many'.years o f t a r i f f p ro te c tio n no, in d u stry 1ever admits, ith a t
i t is-n o longer in need-Of p ro tectio n *
W eth er-o r n o t th e protected
in d u s trie s could, survive: w ithout p ro te c tio n depends upon th e ways Sn
th ey w ere’.built:,; An' iiiduat^y' developed oh the presumption th a t
the t a r i f f duty p ro te c tin g its .p ro tiu o t 'would eventually he reduced
or removed would lik e ly he o f m optimum Siaei to produce p ro fita b ly
■when th e t a r i f f aetuuH y 'wm reduced or rpmoyed*
8n th e other' handp
th e re -are many In d u strie # which were hot developed on such # pre#-'"
sumption*
These
s u c c e s s fu lly
pfoteotian
in d u s trie s have been o v e r c a p i t a l i s e d and are operating
dhly. b e c a u s e the added revenue 'afforded by th e t a r i f f
*, marglapf
8b*uid %* t a r if f b*'''
removed* th e s e llin g prime Of th e product would have. |o b e TedUped9-.
toots'w ould then e x c e e d p ro fits *
"Unfortunately*- few of the p ro tected in d u s trie s in th e United
S ta te s wore:'purposely b u ilt- to- operate- w ithout continued, t a r i f f p f #
te o tio n and those now capable of operating p ro fita b ly * m m w ithout
ta r if f # * n a tu ra lly do n o t advocate a red u ctio n o f t a r i f f and cons#*
q u e n t ly
a probable reduction of p ro fits *
Probably th e most g larin g
example o f t h i s i s th e -steel in d u stry o f t h e United .States*
excluding foreign product# th e home market i s l e f t e n tir e ly to domes-'
t$e.producer#* ;%%#* in ad d itio n to. th e 'm rm o t th ey a lre ad y .-Md*- ,
domestic producer# a re given th e market form erly enjoyed by foreign
producers*
Accompanying this, expanded domestic 'market* i t, i# said*
1# an improvement in domestic wages and a stim ulation o f domestic
production and employment*
,
«■
Oti the o th er sid e of th e
IO S
-F
i s th e fundamental, p rin c ip le
&£ in te rn a tio n a l tra d e t h a t exports must, eventually.. equal im ports»
Curtailm ent of Im ports in..Order, to b u ild up the home market may- be
well, and good f o r ' th e d o m e s tic p r o d u c e r o f the imported a r t ! el.e.> but
"i t must, be remembered t h a t by' to doing th e export m arket of other
.domesti.c- producers w ill be cu t o f # - She catty .then* i s -clearly not
one ,of #
expansion o f ■mnrkets> i t, i s . a question o f deciding which
i s th e more d eb itab le m e n exclusive m arket ,dom estically w ith no foreign
markets.- Pr- a combined domestic ‘and. fo re ig n market*
A combined domes*
tie - add fo re ig n m arket i f lik e ly to be p referab le becauses through
.in te rn a tio n a l. trade*, each tra d in g n a tio n can specialize in, th e pro*
duotioia. o f goods: In which they have th e g re a te s t advantage- or le a s t
dlsadvant#,ge^
Should a l l imports be Out "off $ then resources that
were being employed in e f f i c i e n t in d u strie s' .would be tra n s fe rre d to.
l e s s e f f i c ie n t uses' and th e t o t a l output would th e n be lessened to the
detrim ent o f the. stan d ard o f liv in g o f a lio
WagOsi and ,the T a riff •
,Supporters- of t a r i f f s o ften claim th a t p ro te c tiv e t a r i f f s tire
th e cause o f high w a g e s .
W oir p o in t i s t h a t because o f ta r if f - p ro *
te c tio n , c o fttiin in d u s trie s are perm itted to charge h ig h e r'p ric e s end
t h a t hig her p ric e s lead ta h ig h e r .w a g e s* -- We r e a s o n in g i s sound to
th e e x te n t th a t hig h er p rio m t'Could, # l o w f o r higher wages*
Were
ItijK however* no reason to b e ll eve. th a t high wages- accompany high p ric e s
simply because an in d u stry i s p rotected by the t a r i f f *
A ctually th e
opposite is. iaore g en erally
in d u s trie s with high t a r i f f pro*
te p tio n gen era lly are low wage in d u s tr ie s »
Ihe reason f o r th e low
wages p aid ip 1,t h a t Oven w ith th e higher p ric e s Charged f o r th e
product because of th e t a r i f f protection:,, th e in d u stry id over*
\
capitalised,* or in e ffic ie n t* o r tu rn s out an in f e r io r p r o d u c t* c r
a c o m b in a tio n of th e three* and th e re fo re must pay lew -wages' and
■:
must have Continued; t a r i f f p ro te c tio n In order to operate- p ro fitab ly ^
fig u re 8 shows- a comparison of the average weekly wages o f workers
in p rin c ip a l classes, of manufacture w i t h the approximate ex te n t of
t a r i f f p ro te c tio n each c la s s receives#
I t h a s been th e high p ro d u c tiv ity o f labor t h a t had kept/
United S ta te s Wages r e l a t i v e l y high#. With the aid of s p e c ia liz a tio n
o f labor* machines »■ and advancing t e c h n o lo g y * the American worker
has been able t o tu r n o u t la rg e q u a n t i t i e s of high q u a lity goods end
$n
turn the entrepreneur
in creased p r o d u c tio n *
h a s b een
able- to pay h ig h er wages f o r th e
She most probable effect of the ta riff* on.
Wages*: has been a reduction in rea l wages by causing th e p ric e o f
many commodities bought by wage -.earners to be higher them th e y would
have been v4thout t a r i f f protection*
'Protecting the American Standard of hiving
She case- for protection of the -standard, of liv in g by maintaining,
high ta r iffs run's along these lines.?. Out present wage level # d Stm- ■
dard of living is- high.#: Industry has a high production cost because
o f the high wages* these high production costs* .through, high'-wages*
-
IO i+
-
C lass o f Industry
P r in tin g - News and Magazine
Iron and S te e l
P r in tin g - Book and Job
A g r icu ltu r a l Implement
Foundries and Machine Shop
Rubber Manufacturing
P ain t and Varnish
Chemical
E le c t r ic a l Manufacturing
Paper and Pulp
Furniture
Meat Packing
Lumber
Paper Products
L eather Tanning and F in ish in g
S ilk Manufacturing
Wool Manufacturing
Boot and Shoe
|
|
H osiery and K nit Goods
Cotton Manufacturing
Figure 8
Comparison o f the Average Weekly Wages o f Workers in P rin cip a l
C lasses o f Manufacture, With the Approximate E xtent o f
T a r iff P ro tectio n fo r Each C lass o f Manufacture
Source;
Hoyt E. E ., Consumption in Our S o c ie ty , McGraw-Hill Book
Company, I n c ., New York and London, 1938, page 1 58.
105 *prWen-fc 'dom©s-fcio" pro&m&m from competing, with th e products Cf" l e w
pdid foreign Iahor^
fhe t a r i f f shuts out ©heap foreign goods and
thhd maintains the high Baefi Can standard of liv in g ,. ■
fhe1f l # ia v th ie 'sfgtiseht i,s: th e ,Mswptiozi hWh high'-proddd*
,
tiott costs are- n ecessarily d w to high wages.
As & matter- of fa c t,
Mgh Wages and m accompanying high productivity o f lahpf- may resu lt •
In low labor c o s ts .w h e r e # Xpw wage# had- low productivity may mean
%Why high- labor cost.-
I t Is- much more profitable- to pay a worker >
ten dollars a day to operate a machine, which -tarn# out f i f t y d o lla rs
worth o f product then to pay -a worker one dollar a day. to turn o p t '
fiv e d o llar# worth Of product by hand*. I f the. .resource# employed in
highroost, protected; Industrie# were to be transferred to more e ffic ie n t
Industrie#* the to ta l output would be greater and wages paid Could then
be even higher than formerly* ,
f h # ; ..t a r i f f . W
W lb y m e n t
.
C losely related be the high wages and the home, market, afgu*
ments is- the- Contention that'tariff#'-are. responsible for -a high I e w l
o f -employment* d e lu d in g foreign product# by means o f ta r if f s neoessl*
ta te s domaatio production Of the, formerly imported goods*.
w o u ld
She r e su lt
be # growth -of - new industry "and increased em ploym ent,
■ Shi# argument disregard# the f hot that to continue -Okporfing
we.must also .,import* . P ossibly the new and expanded industries might
absorb a l l t-hbso- persons now engaged in import*export trades* but the ■
n e t e ff e c t would be. a c o stly s h if t o f large amounts -of land*, labor#
fend 'tia p ita l frora r e la tiv e ly e f f ic ie n t eraployBen-b to th e production, of
commodities Tarhifeh ofeuld.have' befea obtained apye advent age on sly from
abroad, and spetii
i a a ti on '.of la b o r vro.uld decrease as & r e s u lt of the
f e h if t f
P ro tectio n o f
lnterefetfe
W der th e p ro te c tio n -of th e t a r i f f # la rg e .iiivestmeate. have
been made i n . p rotected e n terp rises#
Employers# em p lo y ee sa n d eon*
sm er.s have become adjusted to th e Stfetnfe-. quo#
Therefore* rw o tfel ■ '
Of t a r i f f s would r e s u lt i n heavy fin a n c ia l fend sofeial -Ifesfeesl
O
The case 'herfe i s not, fee Kneh fen argument fo r t a r i f f * but one
agfeinfet Its- abrupt removal,*
I p th in k in g persons would s e r io u s ly
propose to remove a n y 't a r i f f '# ra'# ly i*
, '".I
'
■■■■• . :
T a r iff as on Infetrumfent o f Mational. Preparednefefe.
Should th e n a tio n a l p o lic y be one o f fr e e trade# t h e 'W ite d
States- Would be dependent- upon o th er n a tio n s ffer many products and
thus#, I n th e event- o f war# would b e .p u t o f f from th e s u p p ly .o f
e s s e n t ia l materials;#.
W ry lik e ly * , i n the. ca se o f non*p.erlfehable
commodities a t le a st# , i t would be much cheaper t o remove th e t a r i f f
b a r r ie r s and sto c k p ile e s s e n t i a l w ar goods during p ea ce-tim e because
th e c o s t o f .s to c k p ilin g would be- l e s s than in th e added p r ic e on.
d u tia b le imports.
W fO rtu n ately ■*• in war' o r peace* t a r i f f or fr e e '. trade-* th ere
a r e innumerable products th a t, the: W ite d -W a te s sim ply doesn’t have
enough o f anyway * An even, more e ffe c tiv e : reb u tta l t o th is- argument
o f p reparOclttess l a t e point o u t t h a t .% eastern o f free,
tra d e very
4 i% # y -WOttM r m o # a -great numhe^f- o f■the ■in e e a tiv e s of ■war* ' Inol^
I
'
'
.
'
.
•
s
•
■
-I
. d en tally * in s p ite o f ■th e t a r i f f p ro te c tI ob and war tim e '&##%' the;
' >_
•
,^ n i ted.-B tateh wool ittdtietfy Oht prodaetion t e # ^urittg. th e -h e ig h t p f
.#»%w w . a & r . -
.
. ..
.
wStaapittgtt id" the pale of geode a t a lower" price ih one market
thatt itt another* Strangely enough* since it; would Seeiit logical to
expect nation# #e %ll. as individuals.- to -strive for the most'good#
and services at th e least cost, dumping is considered to be.a very
despicable. sin to eommit ,-.in intorhationai affairs* _Actually#, dumping
could he ruinous to an industry of industries, i f the practice were
allowed to continue for any. -length of times-, fee fear-: is. th a t dumping
would bankrupt heme industries and a f te r having become dependent on
foreign sources of supply# prices, would r i t e above th e ir o rig in al
level,
■.
.
. Dumping# then#, is, a.practice to be guarded Pgalast9. but
perennial ta r iff barriers are surely net the best solution# ■f t would
seem more practical and. less costly to- formulate -a. program of flexible
import .quota's' to be put into Operatiqn whenever protection from.
■dumping is actually needed*
^Discussed in fart III* p$. 6^.»
.■
X09' ■=
in- as.amse^e- in- W is Ossep- that Oomestio marke t s are more
-Stahlo and, thus more' -OosiraMe than; are foreign1markets* • Aeeordinglya
the Wing, to -do i s to put-up high t a r i f f barriers* Shut o f f imports*
■and Sell everything produced- -in
th e
domestic' market#
To repudiate t h is argument# At: may he said that i t i s extremely
doubtful Wat a self-sufficing' economy would he constantly stable*,
'
■
because there are many
'
fa c t o r s in
operation
__
w it h in
a nation*.#,and -
especially one as large- and diverse as the WAted Staies**whie>h
affect economic sta b ility as much or more than do w e -effects' -of
international trade#
I t may be that a .nation, restricted'to We home
market would he even less. Stable -then- U nation -engaged Am international
trade because i f the products of a nation have a wide and: diverse;
market We- demand for these products w ill be relatively more sta b le
than in case of a-, restricted markeW :&iee # nation with established,
trade- connections in. foreign co u n tries would be- able to b e ll it s
surpluses W exchange for shortages whereas. We sta b ility of the
economy of
a
nation with
r e s t r ic t e d tr a d e
would be upset Wenever
Shortages or surpluses appeared*
S c ie n tif ic T ariff,
On th e face o f i t r s c i e n t if i c t a r i f f has considerable appeal«
trader a " s c i e n t i f i c " t a r i f f * th e r a t e s Would be j u s t high enough to
cover- th e d iffe re n c e of' co sts of production plus tra n s p o rta tio n b e - .
tw een
fo reig n and dom estically produced, commodities w ith no favors
o r p riv ile g e s granted to e ith e r#
I
o* 3,09
in: th e f i r #
i
t
Wel l ^ si# ,,.
t a l a Bdtli fo reig n #%# domestic dost© o f .production f o r .t h e ,'Btidd^pds
. o f iteras involved in in te r n a tio n a l. Orade0 , As- was- 'pointed out In
B art £jP foreign c o s ts . o f production .and even .a true, p ic tu re of domes*
t i e co sts o f production are .Iiot- UvaiiaBle^: - -.SecOndlf> -all Benefits of
tr a d e , # .i#h-'ore t o .Bftaio- goods s o re cheaply than cap, Be produced
■
a t home, would be l o s t I f th e co st :d f a n . a r t i c l e ,w as the-
to the
consumer »■reg a rd less o f whether It we# produced a t home o r By Afo reig n n a tio n , a s would Be the- ease under- * & ete n t!f!# ' B a riffh 9
th ir d l y , since, co sts of fo re ig n products would Be equal to- domestic:
................................. . -. .-
■ ..
■•
- --- -
c o s ts , th e re would Be ho p r o f i t to Be gained by tr a d in g , and thus
im ports as: w ell as exports would ev en tu ally cease,-
Domestic indue*
t r i e s whose, margin o f p r o f i t depends .upon mi ex p o rt m arket -would
%
>
■
.
•
■' • A
{}» ■■ 1 ■'• 11■
. 1• •
then Be forced in to Bankruptcy o f -else, th e y would have to ,-redu#
production and charge higher p r ic e s .to domestic consumers of t h e i r
producto
fh.e conclusions drawn from. Considering high t a r i f f a s a
n a tio n a l-p o lic y ,are. B rie fly i
I-,
- --
Supporters of, ta riff- measures ,d o u b t le s s ly support
t a r i f f s f o r r e a s o n s -other than th e claim, o f
n a tio n a l’W elfare-, In ■O ther.words-, - the- suggorte-rd-
oee "Coniparatiye OoBtsn0 p* 2 3 ,
ar© a c tu a lly Intaroeteid i n t h e ir own in d iv id u a l
fin a n c ia l w ell being*
Se L oeees'oaueed by t a r i f f a a re beyond■question^
Valuable bQsourceB-'&re -diverted from e f f ic ie n t
, to in e f f i c i e n t in d u strie s*
3»
Seoause o f t a r if f s # th e re are le s s - to ta l' goods*
and a t a higher price*, a v a ila b le to consumers*
k*
P ro fits to the. p ro tected in d u s trie s seldom* i f
ever* equal or ex ceed'the l o t s to unprotected
in d u stry and tra d e and to consumers*
5»
In new Countries p ro te c tio n o f in fa n t in d u s trie s
w ithout doubt -speeded.up.the establishm ent o f
in d u stry b u t continued p ro te c tio n has l i k e l y '
c o st consumers, more th a n . the- o rig in a l b e n e fit
was wprthe
'•
y
.
6b
•
■
.
■
•
• . . . .
Continued' t a r i f f " p ro te c tio n -fo r vested in te re s ts '
i s a v a lid argument b u t only if .n o means-Of ,a
' gradual s h i f t in investm ents i s feasib le* >.
P ro te ctio n against- ■e x c e ssiv e ■dumping i s necessary
■but should and could be.^accomplished by o th er •.
-• •• means, th a n 'th e t a r i f f *
-I ■ , •
•••.••
12-1 *
tr
AppeadiiL B
.
9L6SSAW
Blood *- thO tOmg W f blood, th reo ^ eig h ts blood, q u a rte r blood*
-and tow q u a rte r blood are a r b i t r a l , names o f fo u r graded.
Of wool lndioating the degree a f fineness of the wool and
apt the breeding o f the sheep from which I t Oame0
Braid -w- #%e Coarsest ,#f the Baited State's- standard grades- of wool.
B right flee,be », -Woota- th a t, are b rig h t i a color Md Of re la tiv e ly ,
lig h t shrinkage* Hearty a ll wools- grown.-in the sta tes - east
o f the M ississippi B v er are o f th is type9Oardlng « fhoi proeass' of opening looks and Wfts- o f scodred wool
so that the fib e rs are separated from each other*
Barpet wool -»■ A odarse wool o f poor qu ality that usually comes -from
uhaaaproyed ,sheep* Bsed largely in the manufacture of -fleer
covering*
B l e # ba&i# # Aithdugh only a small portion o f the. wool -sold ia .
' American markets has been secured ,at the time o f sale* the
p rice quotations are given a t so- much per pound on th e " .
clean basis*
Blean c o st * Sa®e as clean basis*Blip « BeferS to the wodl shorn from one flock of sheep or to the
to ta l wool shorn la one season*
Blothlng wool, « Wool -th at i s presumed to be too short to combi In
- the IFnited States, the term refers td length alone* Carpet
wool, i s divided in to clothing and combing wool according to
' I t s length*
Bombing » An operation in the manufacture o f worsted yarn by which
the short fib ers are. separated from the- long, and placed
p a r a lle l:to each other*
Bombing’Wool, ^ Wool t h a t has good stre n g th and l a long- enough- to
combo
Qommon- wool ^ The next to tioareeet' ■grade In th e United S ta te s ■
'<
ro i&io ia l WOl gradOSe. ■ ■
Compensatory d u tie s *\ -W ties on wool alone helped only th e growers
~7"r Tl eM 'eanseci^importation 'Oifj-W ol fabrlO s pi' Compensatory du ties
• WtO-. then -Ietriei on mW nfao'tured W ol to p ro te o t Oomestie
■■''' '' '' - Jhillopfi'
" ' •
.
'• -V.■
. .‘.- ..
:
i :: ,
Crossbred r;pol Wool from sheep produced by crossing any o f the :
' "".."'"'lieriiio1'Snb#bfeeds w ith tiny o f th e -Snglish long-irool breeds#;
-
fin e wool *- The f in e s t o f th e -b a ite d S ta te s o f f ic ia l Wool grade# on
' ' a common te rn applied to wool from Various sub^breeds o f ;
*
iseriao' sheep# /
fren ch combing «■ Sn interm ediate len g th between s t r i c t l y combing-sab
' '
' ; ClOtliihg WOl5c '
' '
Crease, wool Qr greasy 'w p o l *>Wool t h a t has n o t been washed o r scoured#
d ir ty and o th er 'fo reig n matter#'
f u lle d -wool & Wool p u lled from th e oleins of dead sheep#gooured.
b a sis *■, Same as- -Clean b a sis#
- '...'"!.r - .lwl nw«r
Scoured wool, w Wool- from which n a tu ra l impurities*, d irt* etc# * have
' '^''-''^een removed# ■
'
Shoddy1•# .IfoCl f ib e r -fecoW red' from old- o r -new rag®# '
S k irted fle e c e s * ■fle e c e s from which th e ' in f e r io r ■and heavily ■ - ahrinhlng p a rts around th e ed g es' have been removed# A
" ty p ic a l operation Cf B r itis h Empire- wool' growers#
- - territo ry ." w ool' e '■Wools -grown.under range oonditiensy- ■''G enerally
Gtr#qrfr the eleven- Western s ta te s o f th e W ite d -.
-State's# These .wools - show & wide range In Shrinkage and color#
Tops •* A. semi-manufactured pro d u ct o f w orsted-Wole a manufaOturingo.
-Worsted
.i,i.r...,-.!..HJ1- ,, .,;j
fa b ric s constructed from,: yarn made
o f combed wool#
'
, ,
1
BlBLIOffMPH^
Bgnediet* Murrfey B9i, %dw
T a riff P ro te etio n fo r Pfem Proiudtdve
Oam egie BndQrmeut. f o r InterOfetl,on.fel.; WfeOp* (Borkeleye, , ,
.
% W e ro iW
m l W # i%
1945) 4.
B erger, Be
1BiO B ffeota m # b W B & A g rlW tu re o f -the' t a r i f f m :
,■ ■. ^
Oetoor,» Lf- 6;«.»
i
W$&?
_. l
B rie f M atO fy o f:'# e .' B k e # -f# u a t r y „ 'f M W lt e i
%ffq.e #& 0f
OHamLer Of CZoimneree o f th e United S ta te ty lttPoreigU Irade -ProLlema'- as
Belated to A grioulture in the: pest'WAT Beriodwe Statement Of
th e A g rlo u ltu r a l: W a rtm e n t # * # # # # * , B n lW '
19^6»
.Ooon> Jo. Mo, ^Oooperatiro 'Marketing o f Pieeee Wool” , farm ,Oredit
.A dm inistration, B ulletin. M#., 35* WaaMngten,
UooUj- Jo tk * '"using lour.w ool, ffo«op{,e. , f u # c re d it .A #i#l,etrA tiou
■Siroular ,BrlSy-VaOhingtoue.
# o to # f'
Soon5 Jy Mo-s and Btodall,, 0* ffo* ttWeol AUotioUa in th e United S ta te s” ,
M m - Ufe d it,A d ^ iu ittfa tio ft.ip e o ia l, Report. Bo* 36»'-.Washington,
- ) , (
'B a lg ety 4-S: Annual Wool Review,: yW e A ustralian/and; lew goslaad Wool
IradOtt 5 (Sydney#, A ustralia* B algety and' Company#. L im ited,
19l#rl9W )*
., . "
Bitoond,-''Jf, #1 , and "W* W# SV> Monttoa BtodWok.of. Agfieultura!
S t a t i t t l # ' * 'Bureau o f ' A g r id u ltu fa i " " B o to o # # ^ D i# # io u 'df
S g r iO ^ m fd l S t a t l t f i o s ,. Helena,- Montana, i9likv
BightiefL. Congress, f i r s t S ession, Congressional Beoord, WasLiagtoa,.
A p ril 7, X9kTt lay- 22, 1% 7: May 2$, 1947«
-
B ig h fiefh Congress., f i r s t S ession,
K & r June 1%, 1 9 # , '
'
•
,
.•
SlLtt, Senate B i l l ',: Washington
'
'
E ig h tie th ' C ongress, f i r s t S e s s io n , tiSo ILpBtt, House B i l l , Washington,
' B9C0, June 27, 19L7»
.
E ig h tie th Congress, F i r s t Session, **bg Wool ,Aot o f Xplt,? A* Veto
' Message"* SenAte Eoooment Io,* ,68, W#hihgto%., PeColji
June 2 6 , 1% 7Z
T
'
" ' ■
Ellsworth* P6 T?..# In tern atio n al, Eoonoxaies* (ifevf York,# MaamiXlm
Gompmyi . 1*9W)7".....T ........ "'111,11'J'1'
' '
'
F e tte r a ?<. Ww,. "Some Hegleoted Aspects o f the. Wool
# % # * #%!#.*,'%*+
FortUhs M agasW i " W
dantiary I9k7°
E eprihta,
K dTW T
Inonble w ith P n ited S ta te s WooiftaZfoltime I lW d
C a rtid e a A» S», Wool, W th e Wool Tradea .(Wew York* Frederipk Ae
S^olceg'
%%#
o
o
Ceinmill # P9 F»» ,and W lodgetta
B*# Current Eoonamio Fjreblemsa
Hoyt* So & * Consumption in Ctir S ooietya (Hew York*. tm te m M ll*
m o o rp o B %
.........
w i t a * F red #* * and a % il»
............
dehh' Wiley W "Sons,* I n c o r p o r a le f r i^ lT o
(lew York?
Hyson* O9 Be, “Maladjustments'Sn the Wool Industry end Ieed'for a
lew Polioyfta Journal ,of Farm EoonOmios* V oW e W l a- la y 19^7»
F ald ora ©on* nI h r if f a ** Do, th ey .I e l p 1or Hurt Cs?", I o w a :Farm Spienoea
(M im a Iowa? .-Iowa # & t * C o ile g e a Volume J*
1^w " "
S l W a L» Eea and Starkey* % -P9.* Introdtiotory Economio Geography,
(lew Yprkf H arcourta Brace* and'-'cPm ^^
'1
'■ '
-Eti-SnetSa Simona ftSationalMnpoWe.* X9$9*%9W# S a fio n a l'Bureau of
Boonpmics,
fPiVhWr,Btilleflh
......... ’V
Zfl^urV#Vs-'eVa*-^
r.infillW
ijii^nW
'|»PiW
W
*66,
mrtl* Sew Y o ^ S l f r ^ ^ "
lew is* H9 I 9a- Sttidy On T a r if f on. Woola ;■(F reeport, Illin o is * , W le ig h
Foundation, 1930) <, - "
'
'
Mayooka T» Fa-* ftIhe Covernmenf and Wool*. 1917*20"* A grip tiltu ral
H istory,, Series,, gp*.
Hnlted'- States-, Department of '# p & W t* re ,.
Eoonomlpsa IW hlngfbna,
Atiguft
X9y3a
,. ■
"' ", -I-,
Mpadea- C9- Bea and Bitpha C9 J9a An Introduction, to ' Eoanomic- Analysis
and Policy* (Sew forks Oxford’pfefs* 'IpgBl9''''''''-''"''''"''"
■**
J t l J j 'I *
'Mighftltjv 'I#. - j , . ^E ffects o f M eriftsn«»,QanaSian -Tradft ,ReeiprQeiiyi ftar'
*• #*%**& ftt.fftirm -EeeaftBiifts^ "folme- 2Qmr,.
MftiWtNW 1 W *
-^
. ' ....'
E o ffah j. d* %» -ftt a tf: fo ftaw M
Thomas,- To.
-Cfe1T York: /
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ; ■'
Motiftijv S* Hgi-Ci- The--, T a riff oa Woeij -Ilfftdi-Soaj,-- WiseotiftiaT "T ariff #%.,
Moaisaft Wooi Growers. AssooiaM on> '11Moataaa Weol' Growern14l -Qfffftiai
.-NhiiftfttlQaj-,-Moathi^ HftlQaaiff- Moatanag
' ‘"r '"'-""'1"' ''
.»
WfttiQnS AftsdftiftMoa -of Wool MftftftfftQfftrar% 11M U e tin o f th e "Wool
M aaufacM rersn-C- Q ffiftiai.' P u h lio atio n , TQiumeft &8GIIU
HXXlf, LXXfj B o#dag W f ts W u ^ f tft-i lQi+3, IQiM* W&*
n
/ .
.
-
r .
'
*
' >
WaMonai Wool Growers -Assooiafioti j- nThe WftMonal Wool Grower’1s
'^ffidlfti NwWftMoA &nthly» Kali t a # Mty^ Wt*h*
Offlfto Qf- N r e i p A grieuitu r a l BslfttionsD yN r f t i p A g riculture
Qirftuiftryjff Hidted S ta te s Department of A griftulturei,
-,- -WfttihingtQaji.SQ** to y
*&»':&fa & #& » *
■1 .
■ ,/
•■" '
f
P
Qfflfte o f War information,. P ress .WftlftftfteQ.--* Wsshingtonff- DdCoe A uril 17»
-- i
# r#
.- - \ - - P e te rs ff W alter Hdj LWetoft%..Pr.oduQtien,ff '(Wew Tories EftGrftw^SiU
•, Qomppyj. 'i9 ^ )w -n,nr1 ^ ''j: ‘
*
1•
/
•
►
.1-
'
;
j
Produetioa end Marketing Adminiftt ra tio n j, Prftfts ,-Heloaseslff- Dhited
S ta te # D epsrtm pt',o f.A g rlW t# re * ^ ^ 0 S ^ ^ 0 ^ T % :& * '. ,■' -'
'AugQftMl i * iQhii.'duae W m t tlfty £ # -1 # % 'Q-shuW'y'ggj Wk&t
-Woyftmhor £7* 1945» '
Selhyff Bf Effff and G M ffith ff Dff;:f e - . Qftk--Ih^uoMfta i n , NlaM ftn
■tft; 4pd Hse-.snl. JtrrjgaMftn ^
staM M
Mrsi--Sftohftmioft;*; 'ler&ftl.eyj: Q allfftrnia^' Earfth
SftTrftnfy^Winfh- Gongreftftff. Second Session*-yAa E ffectiv e Wool Program110
s # a t e ,Document Woff IW^ (Wafthingtftnff -DdQgff Gewfumeht- .
Smith* M0 Aff-.*' W -, 'T a r if f ,on itool.*-'it^ -'T ork -i1' W e'lE a o m iilP ' Cftmpsnyff
-1926)»'"
*
0Bontana Sheep IMnoh Study0,s Prolitoin&fy Beport^
(Bo^eroanjf Montana* Montana Agri o ultural^A perim ent Station.»
January 191*6) ,
. SkKIfWatlgf F*
. # f * TTeds*'
tto.lted S ta te s Department o f A grieulture* A g ricu ltu ral ,S ta tis tic s fl
(Washington* D .C ., United S ta te s ^ % r ^ e h t 3 r W t l n g Offioe*
- I 9 g 6 .w *
'
''
' y' ' .
Waited S ta tth
Of A g ricu ltu re, M $ f m Of A g ricu ltu ral
. . Beonomlo#*
Produoth* (Washington*
PlOwa to ite W W a E e l^ o y ^ H ir a e n t^ n ^ iS g ^ l^ a iT Safdh l9l4)o
Whitod S ta te s Wopartaent of .Agfltakthre*' Bureau of Agfi c u ltu ra l
Wtioaohios, Ihe WoOi Situatiga.*, . (Washington, .WflOfl fl, Waited
S ta te s Goromment f ringing 'Office#, June 19, 19#,*, Bdfeh 15,
■
• ’ '■•.. ,19#)%'
'
'
'.
Whited S ta te s Department d f A grioultufe* 0Ollmate' ,and # a % 19%
^arhO oB # A g f l^ lth f e * W ashlh^oh* WwO** 1 9 # ;
Wnited S tates' Department o f AgriouitUfO*-0What Weaoe Oan Mean to th e
American;farm er0, M isdellaaeous Publioation Whfl 5Q2,
Gotohef 1945)»
WnltOd S ta te s Wopartmeht of A g ric u ltu re , Ke'afhao^, of A g ricu ltu re,
,(Washington* WflQfls- Wftitod S ta te s .GoVernmeht f^ ih t'ih g O ffice,
: ' l# # )* ,
- ,,
, , ' *' '
Waited S ta te s Department o f Wdmmerce Wurdau o f th e census, S ta tls l i e h l , , . W ^ ^ „ d f - . th o ;Whited s ta te d , (Washington, DflWflT"''"''
f i ce,,- l94% 46)fl
Waited S ta te s ,S tatu tes ■a t # r g d * . % lrty4,sW h..-.Sey@ fttyf#l#.
(W a sh ih g tcn , D#W*^' W h ited s t h t e s ' G ofe & d n t B r A ^ in g "
Yolm es
1$6&,:15#)'*
Wnited S ta te s f a r i f f .Oommissionj, elOost o f Production o f Wool in
1945"» U n ited S ta td s G dteitom ent-Pfihting O ffice* Washington,
^dne
..
- '. : V/ ' ' .
/ .-
Wnlted S ta te s T a riff Commission*, ° # e Costs of Wool, Sheep*-and
Damhefl 1940*45*1*■ (Washingtdh%Dfl;Cw,,-Wnited States,Go-wrnment
P r in tin g O f f ic e , M a y '# # )* - '
* U7
i a i i e d s t a te s T a riff Gommiesion, ’’Sstim ated Costs o f Produotidn o f
Wople Shoepe, an.5 Sembs, ip. 19% Qomparod w ith' Spots In
19%*%'% (,Washington^ DjC., I h ite d S ta te s Government
P rinting, Gffloo.,, S m m r y 19% ),
DaitOd S t a te s ' T a riff Gottmisaion* ttBstiaiatod Goats o f Production o f
Wool, Sheep* had Lambs la 19% and 19% Gompared with %t&
fo r the Period 19%*19%*% (Washington,. D.G.» .Dnlted s ta te s
Government Printing- D ffioe,. 19%)<» ■’
' ' ' ' . . ' ■■
Dnited S ta te s T ariff' Commission, ''.Saw Wooltt s >%r Ghangee in Industry
•S eries^ Report Ho. I* (Washington*
' 'DnitSd StateTGovPna.^
S e n tP H H tE i^ H m c e 8. May 19%)*
.
' ''
T
‘
-
-
•-Dnlted S ta te s T a riff ,G om isslon* ttDnited. S ta te s S toofeP ile ** W olttir
(Washington* ..
D»C».* D n it^ StatsI Government'printing Dffie#:,,, lap 19%) „
Dnited S ta te n .T a riff Commission, 'ttDnited S ta te s Wools", Peport o f
tW , Dhlted S ta te s T a r if f OottmiSSlon, (W ashington,''#,#,,.' '
Dhlted S ta te s G ovem tteht^H tt^ng Dffio e , March 10, 19%) Q
D nited S ta te 's' t a r i f f Oottaission, ttD nited S ta te s -Wq# Production by
WgionS- end by Grades, I9 g fe% , and Comparison o f Productipn
w ith Reported Consumption, and with. Army Wool BequireBiontstt,
(Washington, D*D*., DnitSd S ta te s Government P rin tin g . Cffloe,Marsh IS , 19%)»
fan Horn, -.I,:,- and H u lb e rt, % H ., 'ttMarfcetlng the 19% Wyoming--Wot
Clip Dnder the, Commodity Credit '.Corporation Plantt.*- p a # .
C redit .Administration -Miscellaneous .Report' Ho, 9& Wahhlngten*
Walfcer., J , F4» "Some Factors A ffecting th e Marketing.’o f Wool In
A u s tra lia ,' Dew Sealand, th e DniOn o f South' Afrioa*:- Bngland,
W 'Franostt, WeeWsal DullAtln.-Mo^ :&&% WhWgtw* D»C%*
-%ited'State.S%^arSa^^fA^%%w^*'l9#)«;;'
W alker, .4p $9* Wool. Preduetion and Marketing,- (Chisago, Breedera'
P a b lis a M % % ) D
'''..... .
"
War peed Administration,-, preae.,MsloaaeS,*-, (-Washington*;,.&-C>,* Dnited
Sf
##% 19». lWg-"®es#bW
Welle., 0. P*,.. ttDnited S ta te s T a riff BatOh. on A g rie u ltu ra l Products
(Mavieed)P-,. (W ashington,'D .do. United States: Department of
• A gricu ltu re,. Bureau of AgrleulturAK Boonomicse August l9% )»
w orld Bepoyt |a g a ||n S » ttD nited Dtdtea.- Baoea B l w a a ev er Wooitt'*-
The author i s ..appreciative o f.th e tim e, considera*
tio n and advice given by the various'.iaeffibers of- the
Thesis Committee* and i s ,espeeiaily Indebted fo
% I*-, --KSlSh-J.,- Chai m m '-of th e
&#
W 'f&P
the; o r i i i h a l md,- Sjhbsequeaf :drafts@,-'.md' to -the:' ;! .
s e c re ta rie s in th e Agrihhitural:" Ecdnomiee Depart*-'
iaeht fo r t h e i r time spent Ott typing a d d itio n al :
odpiss
th a .th s s i# » '
M ONTA NA S T A T E U N IV E R SIT Y L IB R A R IE S
!IiiiiiiiiiiHiiiniIi
3 1762 10020826
S
Cop. 2
Vaughan, E. D.
The b e n e fit s and c o sts o f
the ta r iff o n w ool.
N 3#
746b
cop. 2
64365