Democratic Sentinel, Volume 15, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 17 July 1891 — ALARMED ABOUT WOOL. [ARTICLE]

ALARMED ABOUT WOOL.

FALL OF PRICES FRIGHTENS THE M’KINLEYITES. A “Dtst'ngnished Congressman'* Gets a Letter—Low Price* of Wool Hurting he 9. O. P.—Sharp Words of a Protection Raper—Wool Tariff Matters—“ Crassly Ignorant.” The fact that wool prices are so much lower now than before Mcivinlev’s increased wool duties took effect is alarming the souls of tho faithful. “A Western man who is interested in wool” has recently written a letter ou the subject ■ to “a distinguished Western Congressman who helped to framo the present tariff law”—evidently Hon. Julius C. BuVrows of Michigan. The writer calls attention to the marked decline In priios, and says “they bid fair to touch a lower level than at any time under Mr. Cleveland’s administration, or even when the Mills bill was pending." Prices have dropped still lower since this was written. The effoct of this upon the g. a p., as the writer points out, Is rather discouraging. “it is so contrary to general expectation,” ho says, “and so damaging to all argument or effort in favor of protection, that the friends of protection, and those who have advocated that side of the issue before tho farmers, may bo considered well nigh dumfounded at the situation. ” He further says: “There has been nothing in the long fight of protection vs. free trade, or tariff for revenue, only,.that lias been so,prominent an issue for years, that is likely to be as effective a weapon ior free trado to use as this. ” This letter has been commented upon in the papers, and that sturdy exponent of protection, the Boston Commercial Bulletin, has been moved to admit that “the McKinley wool schedule is tho *Bgreat piece of botch-work which has given the opponents of protection their strongest argument against tho tariff.” This wool schedule, the Bulletin says, “was framed by men grossly and crassly ignorant of the ordinary conditions of tho market, and indeed of everything except tho bo.ief of the ignorant that legislation is a euro for every ill ” Alas! that is all very hard ou the good McKinley, Our Western Congressman was not able to answer the letter quoted; It presented too grave a problem to his “crassly ignorant” mind, and hence he sent it to a prominent firm of protectionist wool dealors in Philadelphia. In its answer, this firm laid the chief blame on the decline of prices of Australian wool in outside markets. But this explanation will not hold water. The Bulletin admits that “Australian wool has declined abroad, and that tho English manufacturers are paying loss for it to-day than a year ago.” But that declino has had nothing to do with the fall of American wool prices, for this eminent commercial journal says: “Our buyers are paying the same that they paid a year ago (for Australian wool), and the additional duty of a cent a pound on grease wool makes the scoured cost to the American mill of Australian combing about 2 cents a pound more than a year since (80’s quality merino were 78 cents then and are 80 cents now), while Ohio XX fleece costs in the grease 3 cents and scoured 6 cents a pound less titan at that time. ” “Ohio wool. ” says tho Bulletin, “is 3, |/owly vanishing industry. The Ohio farmer finds that other crops pay him better. ” But what are the Ohio political shepherds to do when their occupation is gone? Thev will bo of all men most miserable when they must “cease from troubling” and tho weary public is at rest.