Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 2, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 February 1888 — THE WOOL TARIFF. [ARTICLE]

THE WOOL TARIFF.

How the Farmer and Wageworker are Taxed to Make the Rich Richer. Patrick S. O’Rourke, in the Fort Wayne Journal, makes the follow ing remarks for the benefit of the' protectionists: “It has ever been the practice for the shrewd and cunning to overreach the plain and industrious, who have neither the practical experience of the world’s business cunning, nor the opportunity of acquiring it. And it was by a cunning trick that the toiling farmer was duped into the belief that a tariff on wool would make his fortune. In 1861, owing to the war, a general tariff act was passed, but wool was left out of the protected list. The farmer was paying an increased price for almost every article he purchased, and hence he began to talk and act like a tariff reformer, and did not believe in protection. The talk of the farmers began to annoy the high tariff men, and they looked about to see what could be done to quiet the farmers, and if possible to make them protectionists. In 1867, six yeais after the passage of the general tariff act, Congress placed wool on the list of protected articles.— What was the result?

Previous to the wool tariff aet of 1867 the number of sheep in each of the named states w**s as follows: Ohio, 7,159,177 ;Miehigan, 4,028,767 Pennsylvania, 3,456,568; New York, 5,373,005; Indiana, 3,033,870; Illinois, 2,764,072; Wisconsin, 1,664,328; lowa, 2,399,429; making a total of 29,879,222 sheep in the eight states. Thirteen years afterwards, in 1880, the same states contained sheep as follows: Ohio, 4,902,486; Michigan, 2, 80,389; Pennsylvania, 1,776,598; New York, 1,715,180; Indiana, 1,100,511 ;|lllinois, 1.037,073;. •Wisconsin 1,336,807; lowa, 455,379, or a total of 14,513,506 sheep, a falling off of nearly one-

half the sheep in thirteen years of wool protection. Why did the number of sheep decrease in the states named after the|enactment|of a law, alleged to be for the benefit of sheep owners? It is in these states that most of the cry about protection on wool is heard, and yet results Drove that the industry has been injured by protection. A little more protection care of the wool industry would ruin it east of the Mississippi, and drive the whole business of sheep raising and wool culture to the states and territories west of that river where the climaie is mild and land are cheap. The tariff on wool created a monopoly, and as successful monopolies can only be conducted on a large scale, capitalists formed companies and sought out the cheap lands best adapted to sheep raising. Over-production was the result, the market was glutted, and the price of wool fell down to what it had been before, when wool was on the free list.

The result was the decline of the wool industry from New York to Wisconsin, and strange as it may seem, taking in a section of country which produces the best wool for general purposes es any other portion of the world. But the business prospered on the large ranches of tie vest, for the reason that an industry conducted on a large scale can be made profitable, when the smaller ones would be crushed, and hence it is that the sheen ranch owners of Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Oregon and California were making annual profits of from th’rty +o seventy per cent, at a time when the wool growers east of the Mississippi were complaining of the low price of that article. The tariff on wool closed the hundreds of small woolen mills, and that industry has been concentrated in a few principal centers, and like the wool growing industry has become a monopoly. The average price of wool for a series of years has not been as high under th*’ policy of proteclion, as it had been under fr°e

wool. The reason is that the high price of woolen goods has reduced the consumption of woolen clothing by the poor, and Ithough the duty checked the import of foreign wools, yet the home article being largely increased, owing to the creation of the monopoly ranches on cheap lands, and the result injured the ordinary wool production of the farmers. In 1872 the highest and lowest prices of wool during the year, at New York, was 45 cents and 67 cents;in 1873, 35 cents and 57 cents: in 1874, 36 cents and 48 cents; in 1876, 25 cents and 43 cents; in 1877, 32 cents and 43 cents; 1878, 20 cents and 33 cents; 1879, 37 cents and 45 cents; in 1881, 21 cents and 47 cents. Here we note that the tendency since 1872 has been downward ir the price es wool, under the fostering care of protection, and still when the farmer came to sell his wool in 1883, after there had been a reduction in the duty, he could see no cause for it, except the tariff reduction, when the fact is, that under its highest protection wool has often sold the lowest. It is true, oerhaps, that the owner of from five hundred to five thousand head of sheep, or more, can make more money by a high tariff than a low one, if able to hold his wool, and, if necessary, carry it over for a higher market; but nine men out of everv ten, who keep sheep, are affected injuriously by the tariff. Of the 1,000,000 of men who sell wool, ninn out of ten of them will not average over thirty eheep to the| flock, while the/ordinary farmer, even though he averaged 200 sheep would be a loser by protection. Suppose a farmer cou d actually manage to get ten cents a pound more for his wool, under protection, than if wool were free of duty, (but we all know that he cannot), but suppose he could, and that his clip of wool was 500 pounds, he would pocket $50 on account of protection. But let us see how he is going to come out as a protectionist, and how far the extra $50 will go towards keeping him whole, when he comes to buy for himselt and family. Duties about as so lows: Woolen goods: carpets, 44 per cent.; dress goods, 63; cloths, 70; knit goods, 57; shawls, 56; clothing, 65; blankets, 94; flannels, 73; hats, 65; yarns, 80. Cotton geods: calLo, 50; muslin,

44; hosiery, 35; clothing, 35; thread 60. Iron; bar in. i, H); chains, 55 nails, about 17; ‘aim tools, 15 steel rails, sl7 <r ton; Inther goods, 30; gloves nd mittens, 50 fur goods, 30; bo< 1 s, 25; fuiniluie ; 30; paper, 20; brooms, 35; matfinr, 20; tinware, 35; dishes, 20 to 60; copperware, 45; gj sware, 20; soap 30; starch, 100; rit . 100; coal. 20; Humber, $2 per ft. shingles, 35 * cents per M; comm< glass, 60 to 80; white lead, 40; ’ ill paper, 25. Here we have a fe > articles, ont of over four thousand, on which the people pay duty, end there is no farmer so dull, if he will stop and reflect, but can see in a min ute that the tariff on wool was given him for a blind, while on the other hand, the monopolists were not only laughing at him, but robbing him in the bargain. The farmer knows that his duty on wool, increases the cost of manufactured woolens, not only to the amount of the wool duty,|but much i more, for the rerson that the moI nopul y manufacturer, when he consents to a duty on wool, must get an increased duty on his product, so that ho can get back from the farmer not only the duty on wool, but a nice divy besides. As the spider said to the fly, practically, the protection mon< polict manufacturers say to the farmers —come into our circle, be one of us, get protection on your wool, and truly he gets protection on the fleece of his sheep; but in turn is fleeced himself For every cont the farmer has ever gained by protection, he has paid out ten cents to protective monopolies.— The average farmer is a great an-ti-monopolist, in theory, aud no doubt is candid in his opinion, but to be consistent, he should oppose all trusts, combinations, poi Is and the like, even though some one said the/w ere to benefit him; and of all the villainous tariff duties which are laid, those on coal, lumber, woo] and clothing are the most pernicious. Lumber is necessary for the house or cabin of the poor man who has to toil daily for the support of his family. M oolen clothing and blankets are nec-ssaiy to them warm, while coal for fuel is not only necessary to the home of the poor man’s family but in all , the homes and business institutions of our country.

tine day, return to their excuse for a home to partake in a meal which in many cases a rich man’s dog u-

children of God who are always to be with us must suffer the pangs of hardship and misfortune, the burden of daily toil; scant, or at the best, a coarse diet, cold hous--es, shortage of fuel, and worst of all these sufferings brought about through sickness, poverty and misfortune must be increased during cold winter by the use of cotton clothing, as woolen goods are too costly owing to the heartless tariff duties of monopoly manufacturers. When England was a high tariff nation the farmer was protected by a tariff on grain until the masses were at the point of starvation. — Humanity triumphed and the odious duties for protection were abolished. If the farmer will reflect he will see that duties in the shape of tariff taxes on the common necessaries of life, such as clothing, fuel, and the material of which their homes are constructed aggravates the hardships of the poor, and beholding naught but destitution and poverty the lor of themselves and families, they become fit subjects for conversion to the theories of those who teach communism and anarchy. The space between the rich and the poor in this country is getting too wide.”