Democratic Sentinel, Volume 12, Number 27, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 July 1888 — "PULLING THE WOOL, OVER THEIR EYES.” [ARTICLE]

"PULLING THE WOOL, OVER THEIR EYES.”

Attention, Ex-Gov. Gear, of Iowa! A Word for Your Private Ear. Ex-Gov. Gear, of lowa, was regarded by the ultra protectionists as having scored a good point for his side by producing in Congress a few weeks ago a pair of woolen blankets purchased by him at Bonaparte, Van Buren County, lowa, from a woolen manufacturer for $5, and parading them as cheaper and better than could be procured Jor the same money in England. He further remarked: “Now, Mr. Chairman, I •want to call the attention of this House to the fact that the passage of the impending tariff bill will not only seriously injure the ■wool-growers of my State, but it will close up the mill where that blanket was made, and put out of employment the labor engaged in its manufacture.” In making this remark Mr. Gear was slightly disingenuous ; the inference from the context was that this statement was the result, qf information derived from that manufacturer, whose interests he declared to be so vitally endangered. Now, no one could be a better authority for this manufacturer’s views than the manufacturer himself. It so happens that the ex-Governor’s statements, having been put before Mr. Meek, of Bonaparte, at whose mill the blankets in question were made, by a personal friend, he, Mr. Meek, promptly wrote to him, as follows: Office of Isaiah Mef.k, ) Bonapabte, la., May 21,1888. ( Deab Sib—ln reply to yours of the 19th inst. I would say: Our woolen factory commenced operations in 1854, and was in full blast in 1856, and we have been running continuously since that time, except from July, 1803, to March, 1864, which time, having been burned out, we were rebuilding our factory. We have run continuously since then, except short stops in the winter for repairs. The volume of our business is larger than before the war, because we have a great deal more machinery, and better facilities for manufacturing. Taxing, however, the amount of machinery we had before the war, and our facilities for conducting the business, we had proportionately as large if not a larger amount of business then, and I know with more profit to us. [That was the -period of very low tariff and free wool.] Our business was much more profitable before the war than now. If the Mills bill passed, with its provisions for the reduction of the wool tariff [from C 8 per cent, to 40 per cent., with wool on the free list], it is my opinion that it would not reduce the volume of our business, but have a tendency to increase it. It would, if passed, increase our profits, and •consequently our ability to increase wage s of operatives. In our experience, however, the question of wages is ' regulated by the law of supply and demand wholly, and is not affected by the tariff. In my opinion the number of sheep has largely decreased m Vanßuren County since 1860 [when there was no duty on wool]. I am a sheepbreeder, and while the sheep industry, taken for a succession of years, is always a profitable business, the profit before the tariff was put on wool was as great and some years greater than now. With reference to wages paid before the war and now I have forgotten, and am unable to answer. I find by reference to my books that we paid our boss carder in 1865 the same wages that 1 do now. " Isaiah Meek. Mr, Meek’s letter is surely the most complete refutation of Mr. G-ear’s argument before Congress, and puts the blanket episode in a new light. It is bad enough to seek to protect a few at the expense of the many, but wliat will be thought of a man who seeks to'sacrifice the great majority for the protection of a man who does not need it? Next time Mr. Gear undertakes to speak for a man it will be well for him first to.flnd out that man’s views and experience.— St. Paul (Minn.) Farmer.